The importance and potentials of X corridor in the European traffic system

K

BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY

2004.

LXXXIV -

. 2

YEAR 2004

TOME LXXXIV - N 2

UDC 911.3: 656 (497.11)

*

Ј Ј X

Ћ Ј 1

: ,

, X, , ,

. , ( ) ђ

. ,

, - . ,

ђ ,

( )

.

: , , , , .

Abstract: In the network of multimodular corridors, but also in the European traffic system on the whole, corridor X has a very important role more in respect of its position and potentials and less regarding the degree of it valuation. It is particularly so since it represents a section of the intercontinental (land) link between Europe and Near and Middle East. At the same time, this corridor is also a dominant axis of development in the majority of SE European countries, as well as a major component of complex spatial-functional transformations that occur within them. That, inter alia, means that the pace of overall development of these parts will depend both on the pace of the overall valuation of potentials this corridors has (and represents), as well as the strengthening of its role as a major element of intra- and inter-regional linking of this part of European continent.

Key Words: corridors, regions, potentials, traffic, Europe. .

, ,

( ) ,

, ( )

, ,

( ) (

,

- , , .). ђ ,

, ( - )

, ( )

, ђ

*M , - , « », .

, , « », .

1

''

'',

. ( )

, ( )

,

, ,

,

. , 20. ,

( , ,

) (

)2 , , :

,

, (

) , , ,

( , , , , ђ )

( )

, , ( , )

( ) .

,

, , :

,3

( ,

)

, , ,

( ) ( ) .

, ,

-

-, .

( , , )

-, ,

, , ,

,

( 20, ). ,

( )

(

, , , )

, , .

( , , , .)

( )4

( ).

2 _{, “ ”}

.

3

( , , , )

, , ,

-. ђ , ,

( , , .)

.

4 _{1998. ( 1000km}2₎

7,14 km ( ) 0,47 km( )

( )

, ( ) ,

. ,

( , ,

, .)

, , . ђ , ,

,

( ) ,

,

. , ( - )

:

ђ “ ” , , ,

(

-) ( - ) .

, , (

-) ,

( - ) ђ

( )

,

( ,

, 2002.).

( , ,

)

X.

( ) ,

ђ ,

. , ,

( ) ђ ,

-, .

,

, .

, , ,

,

“ ” ( )

.

X

Emone ( ) Marsonie ( . ) Sirmiuma

( . ) Singidunuma ( ). Singidunuma ђ

Via Militaris Viminatiuma ( ) Naisusa ( ) Serdice

( ). X ( )

: Via Egnatia ( -Heraklea-Salonica).

De facto X

, (

, , , .) .

,

( , ,

, ђ

,

,

( , , 2002).

X (

)

( , , , ) . , ,

X,

19. ,

, ,

, , ,

ђ . , , 1846.

ђ - ( X )

, - , - , ( )

( ) X,

, . (1862. ) ђ

- - , 1883. 1889. -

( , 1976.), 1879. 1891. - - ,

, X 19.

– .

,

, ,

( ) . 1846. 1870. ђ

- - , X

, ,

-. 1900. ђ - -

ђ ( ). 1884.

-, X. 1886.

- , 1887. - (

X ). , X

,

, 19

. 1900.

- ( X) - ( X )

20. X (

) “ ” .

20.

, .

, ђ

ђ ,

( . - - ,

-- ).

(“ - ”)

- - - X

,

, ( ) X,

ђ ( ) 5. ђ ,

(

) X ,

,

,

(“ - ”)

- - - X

,

. ђ

, ( )

X, ђ ( ) 6. ђ ,

(

) X

,

, , .

- - ђ -

. - - ( ) ,

( - ) .

- - ђ (

- )

. X ( - - )

, X : - -

, - .

» «

( )

( ) . ,

,

, VI ( - - )

, (

, ) ,

X, , , ,

( ) ,

. ,

X

, (

, , , )

.7 ,

- - - ,

5

X ђ ( 57 59) - - , X -

( 75), X - ( 80) X - -

ђ 65.

6

X ђ ( 57 59) - - , X -

( 75), X - ( 80) X - -

ђ 65.

7 _{, ђ ,}

- ( 160km/h) - ( 160

km/h) - ( 120-160 km/h)

- ( 70-20 km/h) ,

( )

.

, , ,

, ,

( , , 2002). - X 1977.

,

, , , ,

8

, .

,

IV ( - - - - )

( ) ђ

,

-, . ,

, ,

-.

,

( , )

. ,

VII ( )

. De facto X,

. ( )

, , , ( - - )

ђ . , ( ''Y ) ,

, .

( )

- ( ., ., 1978),

X.

, , , ,

( , , )

( )

( , , ) ,

. X, ,

,

.

o X

,

( ) ,

, , ,

-. ,

, , ( )

,

8

: ( - - ) (

. X

, , (

, ) ,

, ,

,

, . ,

X

( )

( ., ., 2003).

, 2002. ( )

3794,8 , 50,6%

.

, 26%

, , , ,

( ) .

(66,9%)

(56,4%). , 100

(2002. ) (

). ( )

,

, 2001. 50,6%

( 963,4 1904,5 )

( , ,

) 2/3 ( 68,7%)

( , 2003).

ђ , ( )

(

) ( )

- .

,

. X

- . ,

,

,

. 1/3

( , ..)

X,

.

,

,

: и, ,

( , , ... ), у и,

( ,

, , .

- , ,

, ...).

(The Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural

Development),

ђ

.

, ђ

-. ( ., 2002; . 2002)

,

,

( 40% , 30%,

34% ).

, ђ , :

-, ђ

; , ђ

,

; џ

,

.

ђ

X,

,

.

« а у аш ша у и и»

« аш и у у

и и, к » - ђ

( , 1996).

, , , , ,

. ђ :

,

; ,

ђ

.

( )

. ,

, , , .

, ( )

X,

( )

. , - ,

, ,

, ђ ,

( ) X.

,

( )

« » ( ., 2002).

., (2002): ,

, , .

. (1976). , .

., (1996), – , ,

. .(2000): - X

”, ( ) LVI, . 9-10.

., (2002), Ј 1980-2000,

, .

., 2002; ђ ,

, – , .

, . (1978), ”. - . .63, . 1,

, .

., (2001): ђ Ј ,

XIV , , .

., T . (2002):

Ј ,

, . 7., , .

., ., (2003): - X,

, . 7., , .

Todorović M., Stojanović B., (2003): Traffic Corridors, Regional Development nd Globalization, Conference of Geography “The reconsiderations of the geographic approach in the context of globalization”, Department of Geography Timisoara.

(2003): 2002., .

BRANISLAV STOJANOVIĆ

MARINA TODOROVIĆ

S u m m a r y

THE IMPORTANCE AND POTENTIALS OF X CORRIDOR IN THE EUROPEAN TRAFFIC SYSTEM

European traffic system is a most developed and complex one in the world of today. It represents an axis of the European space, whose overall development is based on regional differentiation and integration. In this system corridor X doesn’t represent just one of (altogether ten) European multi-modular corridors whose basic function is to link, as main traffic directions, West and Central European main nodal junctions with the transition regions, but also has a role of a section of intercontinental (land) traffic direction that connects the most developed parts of Europe with the Near and Middle East region. The genesis of this direction shows that ever since the Roman Empire it represented the most important direction of communication in this part of Europe, and depending on geo-political changes in the broader area, its importance grew or fell, but always kept the role of an important traffic route. With the first modernisation (construction of railway in the second half of 19th century) its potential increased, but due to socio-political circumstances (non-transparent and unstable borders, low overall development level, etc.) it was very poorly valued in all states it went through. Only in late 20th _{century preconditions were}