1. Introduction
The connection between tourism development and transport systems is clear, as transport networks connect tourism attractions with tourists’ residential areas, clearly influencing tourism development through their evolution and modernization in many regions globally (Lumsdon, 2000; Zhuang et al., 2024).
Railway transport accessibility, in particular, represents a currently debated topic, one that is frequently connected to tourism issues from the point of view of both high-speed railway system development, which stimulates massive population flows in certain areas (Zhuang et al., 2024), and the consideration of sustainability, both of destinations and the leisure sector and of sustainable mobility concepts involving environmental and social benefits for travelers and tourists (Bergantino et al., 2023).
Many studies approach rail transport systems from the point of view of speed, functionality or transfer towards nodal stations, with accessibility considered a key element for evaluating territorial advantages and with a focus on location-based indicators (Cheng et al., 2025). Recent studies have approached railway accessibility by proposing a geospatial approach (Pan et al., 2025) and have focused on data-centric approaches that also use adjusted data and weighted and estimated variables to fill in so-called naive models and predictions based on observations (Sohi et al., 2025). Certain studies have emphasized the impact of major railway junctions as obvious regional advantages for economic development (Fedorenko et al., 2023) and have even focused on tourist attractiveness, using set accessibility indicators based on rail supply and characteristics (Mercier et al., 2025).
There is a limited body of research on rail transport in rural areas and on the development of descriptive analytical indexes that generate variables from existing metadata on rail tourism accessibility. This exploratory study aims to address this gap by proposing a practical analytical tool for rail accessibility as connected to the tourism domain in the Romanian context and which can also be extrapolated to other regions. The Romanian railway system, mostly state-owned, has been an important mode of transport connecting cities and rural settlements.
Romania’s railway transport system is managed by the National Railway Company ‘CFR’—SA, which administers the national network through eight regional passenger railway transport branches (SRTFC). The network is organized along nine main transport corridors: Bucharest–Constanța, Bucharest–Galați, Bucharest–Iași–Ungheni, Bucharest–Suceava–Vatra Dornei, Bucharest–Brașov–Dej–Baia Mare–Satu Mare, Bucharest–Brașov–Cluj–Oradea–Episcopia Bihorului, Bucharest–Brașov–Sibiu–Arad–Curtici, Bucharest–Craiova–Drobeta Turnu Severin–Timișoara, and Bucharest–Videle–Giurgiu. These regional structures generally align with the country’s geographical divisions, allowing for effective spatial analysis of rail accessibility at the national level. Very much affected by lack of investments and lagging behind other EU destinations (Popa, 2024), it may represent a disregarded and an insufficiently valued opportunity for rural tourism development in light of the sustainable and green transport development policies that are particularly important for rural destinations.
Rural tourism has represented a growing sector in Romania since the fall of the communist regime in 1990, and transport connections and accessibility to rural tourism resorts should be a particular focus of interest for policies nowadays.
In July 2025, Romania had a total of 201 resorts from which 54 tourist resorts are of national interest and 147 resorts and tourist areas are of local interest, and which are accessible mainly by road and rail transport and, to a small extent, by air (Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Tourism, 2022). Of these resorts, 114 are located in the rural area and represent the object of our study.
The present research therefore represents an overall assessment analysis of the railway accessibility of Romanian rural resorts based on a descriptive analysis of the existing metadata and on an empirical quantitative analytic tool in the form of an empirical railway accessibility index. This should enable discussion and allow one to envisage strategic solutions for further investments and development of specific dedicated products.
The study aims to address four research hypotheses addressing the main components of the synthetic rail accessibility index, derived from a review of the literature and further validated through empirical analysis, descriptive statistics, and testing of metadata variables.
The main contribution of this paper is therefore an overall analysis and assessment of the railway accessibility of the rural tourism resorts of Romania by providing an empirical analytic tool. As a result, we provide a scientific basis for the policy design of sustainable tourism policies that focus on rural tourism products and priority investments and on optimized management planning in the railway system at the local and regional level.
2. Literature Review and Study Background
2.1. Railway as a Sustainable and Accesible Mode of Transport
Tourism is an economic domain particularly based on travelling and transport services and has an important influence on traffic and the evolution of a transport network spatial model (X. B. Feng, 2023). As transportation has become increasingly important in connecting tourists and tourist destinations, the evolution of sustainable modes of transport has become one of the top priorities of tourism development as human environmental awareness around the world improves (speed, comfort, safety, environmental sustainability, and economy) (Wang et al., 2022).
Compared with other types of transport, railways, especially electrified railways, can function as low-carbon transport alternatives that foster economic development in an ecofriendly and sustainable way (Shen et al., 2024). Numerous studies are nowadays investigating the role or high-speed rail accessibility for the ecologization of urban environments (L. Feng et al., 2025) and even consider it an essential factor for the development of rural areas—a development which may attenuate the unbalanced rural–urban access to economic and social opportunities (Liu & Zhang, 2024). Sustainable rail transport, defined by several variables, including economic, social and environmental, has been analyzed in recent studies with the aim of developing synthetic sustainability indices that can be used in evaluation studies and for the development of appropriate policies by both researchers and stakeholders (Rao, 2021). Advancing railway sustainability while solving intensifying demand for improved infrastructure and reduced environmental impact have become global planning priorities aligned with decarbonization targets and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Bouraima et al., 2023; Koohmishi et al., 2025).
Railway transport is one of the most sustainable transport alternatives, with particular importance for ecofriendly rural tourism development in Romania.
Acceptable accessibility and optimization of spatial and temporal accessibility are an important decision-making element in the choice of public transport. The value of time plays an important role in the analysis of the use of public transport (Vojtek et al., 2024). Thus, transport accessibility is an important indicator for assessing the development of transport networks. This was introduced and defined for the first time as a measure of opportunities for interaction between transport hubs and has been widely applied in regional transport planning and urban industrial development (Zhuang et al., 2024). Accessibility, in terms of the notion of facilitating the ease of individuals in reaching their desired destinations or activities, is a central objective in policies and planning worldwide. Improved accessibility is often highlighted as important for stimulating economic development and increasing the efficiency of local labor markets, as well as for playing a crucial role in well-being and environmental aspects, given its association with travel behavior, social inclusion and the promotion of health and well-being (Vafeiadis & Elldér, 2024).
The accessibility of the railway network is a decision-making factor in the choice of public transport, as compared with individual transport which is typically via road (Vojtek et al., 2024), and is an essential element contributing to travel satisfaction and well-being (Yun & Zhai, 2025). Rail transport, in addition to road transport, should be a basic form of transport as it has reduced social costs, is appropriate for long distance travelling associated with the rural environment, and could be a more viable alternative to regional bus services (Hansson et al., 2021). Approached by many segments of tourists in search of cheaper long-distance travel services in Romania, rail should be seen, as in other case studies, as a part of an intermodal transport system. Transport complementarity, and particularly public transport services, should be considered from the perspectives of equity and efficiency, being mathematically optimizable and supporting sustainable development planning so as to offer opportunities to vulnerable populations (Shafiq et al., 2025).
An essential element of rail accessibility is the station, which embodies a clear attractiveness (Wu et al., 2025) and, over time, fosters the development of public space and services in the surrounding area, enhancing its performance in terms of transport efficiency and service quality. This has been illustrated in studies focusing on urban contexts (Morikawa et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2024) and can also apply to rural areas, as both railway lines and their associated stations depend on geographical variables that reflect strategic economic, demographic and physical accessibility factors, thereby becoming drivers of development and subjects of redevelopment projects in less developed regions (Bouraima et al., 2023). Nowadays, the railway station is a socio-economic catalyst essential for community development, enhancing transport access to remote areas and facilitating encounters between tourists and locals (Van Acker & Triggianese, 2021).
The presence of the station has a high importance for rail transport accessibility in rural areas in Romania.
The accessibility of the railway network, economic connections of urban areas with the rest of the territory, and transit-oriented territorial planning and development are serious challenges to territorial development policies, which nowadays include rail transit as an essential component (Cong et al., 2024). This type of transport modelling and intramodal transport connectivity could also be inspiring for supportive transport for tourism development at national-scale territories, such as the one illustrated by Romania and its rural destinations, which at present display very poor interconnectivity with urban areas nearby and among themselves. Transport facilities and infrastructure are major elements contributing to the revitalization of rural areas and make the difference in various parts of the world between poor and developed village areas (Yang et al., 2023) and contribute to short-term tourism and recreation development in suburban and rural regions (Bielska et al., 2022).
Ticket price and train frequency, especially on routes where round trips within a day are feasible, are also main components which determine rail tourism as a viable option for regional travelling in Europe, as clearly shown by reference studies (Blayac et al., 2024). The comfort level, determined by the comfort class, available services and their attributes, is also a determinant for rail passengers’ choices, particularly for tourism, influencing travel satisfaction (Kathun et al., 2025).
Train frequency is a key factor for rail tourism accessibility, one which can stimulate tourism development for rural Romania and the design of appropriate, viable tourism products.
Train comfort is a determinant of passenger satisfaction with rail transport and could influence tourists’ preference for trains as a travel option to rural areas in Romania.
2.2. The Development of Rural Railway Tourism as a Viable Resource Valuation Opportunity for Romania
The railway network in Romania was built to enable Carpathian crossings and connect the historical regions and economy of the country, achieving access to more than 80% of the country’s territory. The railway system also creates railway borders with Hungary, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria and Serbia.
The only state-owned railway operator is represented by CFR Călători, which offers railway routes throughout the territory, but also internationally. As regional private operators one could mention Transferoviar Călători, Astra Trans Carpatic, InterRegional Călători, Regio Călători, and Softrans.
Due to the increasingly rapid development of the Romanian Principalities after the Union of 24 January 1859, the issue of sales markets to the southeast European area was raised; thus, the means of transport began to develop, moving from the cart, still emblematic for rural Romania even today (Bostan et al., 2020), to the first modernized means of transport of the railway type. Certain heritage stations, dating back to the royal period (Curtea de Argeș, Sinaia and Bucharest-Băneasa), are still preserved and currently functional.
Initially, the railway transport infrastructure was used for the transport of produced capital (wood, coal, salt, minerals, food, etc.) and, later, for civic transport. Over time, the industrial and technological revolution allowed the development of the steam locomotive (the Călugăreni locomotive) to electric or desiro locomotives. A narrow railway (760 mm) was inherited from the industrial past and is exploited today in tourism, by means of mocăniţe, a very popular tourist attraction (old trains) in certain regions (e.g., Vișeul de Sus; Maramureș, Moldovița; and Bucovina), and/or capitalized in the form of a railway museum and railway tourist routes. These facts confirm existing trends in Europe toward saving and obtaining value, through tourism assets, the abandoned or downsized rail heritage connected to industrial and mining regions and displaying successful educational and recreational products (Baker, 2014; Peira et al., 2022). Rural tourism and ecotourism currently display new spatiotemporal patterns, being connected in certain parts of the world with high-speed trains as viable means of accessing remote areas and integrating underserved regions into national tourism trails (Deng et al., 2025).
Rural tourism takes place in those villages that possess distinctive features and rich cultural tourism resources, embodying regional and cultural characteristics through the ecological tourist attractions, agricultural experience, folk culture, traditional village and rural constructions which form the specific rural landscape (Du et al., 2024). In Romania, these villages also overlap administratively with tourist resorts of local interest (114 rural localities), where rural tourism, agrotourism and ecotourism can be practiced. Agrotourism is a form of rural tourism, in which accommodation and other hospitality services are carried out within tourist boarding houses, which are integrated into local farms (Condei et al., 2016). Therefore, rural tourism is also defined by the fact that it is locally driven and by its role in local economic diversification (Ruiz-Ballesteros & González-Portillo, 2024). This type of tourism has a sustainable character in its use of resources and the opportunity for the participation of the local community. Therefore, rural tourism has widely become a means of promoting the revival of traditional villages, providing significant social and economic benefits and becoming a strategy for rural development in both developed and developing countries (Yanan et al., 2024). Rural tourism contributes to sustainable rural development through small local businesses that capitalize on natural, cultural and ethnographic resources.
In order to achieve a sustainable development of rural areas in Romania, the Romanian state joined the European Federation of Rural Tourism in 1995, being represented at the international and national levels by the National Association of Rural, Ecological and Cultural Tourism (ANTREC). It aims to promote the rural environment and offers a major contribution to the implementation and development of rural tourism and agrotourism in Romania. In addition to ANTREC, other NGOs are also joining, such as Operation Village Romaine, the Adept Foundation, the “Trust Mihai Eminescu” Foundation, the Romanian Ecotourism Association and the “Ardealul Meu” Association (Stanciu et al., 2023). For a very good implementation of sustainable development strategies for rural tourism, it is also necessary to involve multi-level governance structures next to local decision-makers that are able to capitalize and operationalize tourism resources in the area (Lequeux-Dincă & Teodorescu, 2024). In addition, a very important decision-making moment in the development of rural tourism in Romania was the approval of Ordinance no. 63/1997 (Romanian Government, 1997). Aiming to create the legal framework for the development of rural tourism activities, it helped to define the distinctive features of rural tourism such as small-scale tourism consumption, farm accommodation, the rural environment and tradition, and, most importantly, the village as a psychological entity (Gherasim, 2012).
3. Materials and Methods
The methodological approach in this study was, to a great extent, influenced by the topic and aim of research. Rural tourism and rail transport are interconnected economic domains that constitute essential components of regional sustainability and green economic resilience, being significantly shaped by both physical and human geographical factors. Thus, the study of rail accessibility as an opportunity for the sustainable development of rural tourism in Romania required empirical research and the collection and use of metadata to demonstrate the accessibility of rural tourist resorts to rail transport at the national level.
To address research hypotheses, our methodology framework (Figure 1) included several methods and performed certain research steps consisting of the following: -. A desk research phase of documentation about the railway system in Romania (the main geographic and historic elements) and legislation considering the declaration that tourist resorts are of national and local interest in terms of the rural environment. -. An analytical phase, in which the main variables describing railway accessibility in Romania, based on existing and available archives, were defined (e.g., access to a railway station, train frequency, types of rail operators, types of trains, number and types of offered services) according to the indicators’ relevance in the studied context (Mercier et al., 2025). -. A data gathering phase, during which data describing the main components of an empirical railway accessibility index (e.g., about train services, frequencies etc.), as well as the main tourism indicators describing tourism attractiveness (e.g., arrivals and accommodation in function), were extracted to elaborate our research data basis in connection to locations (settlements) in our study sample. -. The quantitative mapping of the index and its separate components and visualisation of the main elements of railway accessibility characterizing rural tourism resorts in Romania -. The dataset, comprising mainly numerical (e.g., train frequency, distance to the nearest station, tourist arrivals, accommodation in place-days) and nominal variables (e.g., train category, service type, rail operator), with nominal data also converted into ordinal/categorical form, was analyzed using descriptive statistics, multi-layered crosstabs, and correlation tests (Pearson and Spearman), which are widely applied when working with mixed data (Fávero & Belfiore, 2019). Analyses were conducted in SPSS v.30 (IBM), complementing mapping techniques and enabling hypothesis validation. -. The calculation of the index, including the weighting of variables and which was equally balanced between the presence of the railway station, the train frequency and train comfort variables describing the quality of services, was made according to the above literature review and formulated research hypotheses. For instance, as shown in Figure 1, the presence of a railway station was considered a key indicator in accessibility analysis, accounting for 40% within the total index and further weighted as follows: 40% when the station is located within the rural resort’s administrative–territorial unit, 30% when there is a connection with an urban station and a direct road to it, and only 10% when there is a non-functional station in the rural resort. Train frequency was also considered a main component of rural rail accessibility with a weight of 30% in the index (Figure 1). The train category (R—Regio train, IE—Regio-Express train, IR/IC–InterRegio/Intercity train, IRN—InterRegio Night train) accounts for 10% of the index, with Regio trains accounting for 2.5%, Regio-Express trains for 2.5%, InterRegio/Intercity trains for 2.5% and InterRegio Night trains for 2.5%. In addition, the type of rail transport operator accounts for 10%, with trains operated by the public transport company (CFR Călători) accounting for 5%, and private operators (Regio Călători, Transferovar Călători, AstraTranscarpatic, Interregio Călători, Softrans Călători) also accounting for 5%. The fifth indicator analyzed in the study is the number and type of services offered to passengers, depending on the type of train, and accounting for 10% within the total index. In Romania, the available services include first-class, second-class, and bicycle-friendly carriages (2.5%), second class sleeper cars containing 4 or 6 bed/couchettes (2.5%), first class sleeper cars (with 1, 2, or 3 beds, including luxury compartments) (2.5%) and restaurant or bar cars (2.5%).
Rural tourism resorts in Romania have continuously evolved as their number has increased since the late 2000s, up to very recent years (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Government Decision no 120/2024 (Romanian Government, 2024), for the approval of the certification of certain localities or parts of localities as tourist resorts of national and local interest, was among the last to complete the Government Decision No. 852/2008 for the approval of the rules and criteria for certifying tourist resorts in Romania (Romanian Government, 2008).
According to the adopted methodology, this study focuses on eliminated territories belonging to urban administrative–territorial units (UATs), according to the Administrative Code (OUG no. 57/2019, Articles 94–95) (Romanian Government, 2019) and in accordance with the administrative classification established by Government Decision HG 559/2001 (Romanian Government, 2001) for tourist resorts or with Law no. 351/2001 regarding National Planning—section IV—Network of Localities (e.g., Timișu de Sus, Pârâul Rece, Poiana Brașov, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Neptun-Olimp, Lacu-Roșu, Geoagiu-Băi, Amara, etc.) (Romanian Parliament, 2001).
4. Results
4.1. Railway Transport—A Sustainable Alternative for Rural Tourism in Romania
In recent years, along with the efforts to implement organizational and administrative restructuring policies for tourism development and the establishment of local, county and regional DMO structures (Lequeux-Dincă & Teodorescu, 2024), a whole range of new urban and rural areas have been declared resorts of national or local interest. In July 2025 the Ministry of Economy, Digitalization, Entrepreneurship and Tourism of Romania declared a total of 201 tourist resorts, of which 147 are of local interest and 54 are of national interest (Figure 2 and Figure 3). From this total, 114 resorts, of both national and local interest and located in rural areas, were the object of our study.
Figure 2Types of rural tourism resorts in Romania.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Figure 3The evolution of rural tourism resorts in Romania.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
If modernized, railways are undoubtedly among the cleanest modes of transport. Romania’s rural remote and environmentally sensitive areas should not overlook the advantages of rail—such as low fuel dependence, eco-friendliness, high safety, and the ability to connect distant tourist destinations—and should reorient development policies accordingly. Diesel trains are still present in rural regions in Romania and represent evidence that partially invalidate our hypotheses (Table 1).
Non-electrified railway lines serving isolated rural areas in tourist regions—such as the Apuseni Mountains (where a PNRR project is currently underway to electrify and rehabilitate the Cluj-Napoca–Oradea–Episcopia Bihor line), the Maramureș resorts (e.g., Săpânța, Vama, Ocna Șugatag, Șisești, Ieud, Botiza, Bârsana), the tourist resorts of Northern Oltenia (e.g., Voineasa, Mălaia, Vaideeni, Costești, Polovragi, Baia de Fier), and those around Întorsura Buzăului (e.g., Sita Buzăului, Gura Siriului, Vama Buzăului, Barcani)—stand in sharp contrast to modernized regions such as the Prahova Valley tourist corridor (Figure 2 and Figure 3). This clearly demonstrates that, in the absence of investment in rolling stock and railway infrastructure, rail transport cannot represent a sustainable alternative for tourism in rural Romania. Of the 114 rural tourist resorts analyzed, 53 are served by non-electrified railways (46.5% of the sample), a result that largely invalidates our first hypothesis.
4.2. The Railway Station—An Essential Element for Rail Transport Accessibility in Rural Areas in Romania
The rail accessibility of rural tourist resorts in Romania is mainly assessed by the existence of a railway station within the administrative–territorial unit of the settlement (Figure 4).
Of the 114 rural tourist resorts included in the analysis, only 2 resorts of national interest (Costinești and Lacu Sărat) and 19 resorts of local interest (such as Bicaz, Cacica, Deda, Putna, Sadova, Sărata Monteoru, etc.) have a railway station within their administrative territory. The other 93 resorts have rail access nearby, which allows them to be connected by individual or public road transport (private car or bus). An important role is played by the urban railway stations such as Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, Vatra Dornei, Orșova, Buzău, Focșani, etc.
The regions with the highest concentration of rural tourist resorts with rail access are those managed by the Regional Passenger Rail Transport Branch (SRTFC) in Iași (Obcinele Bucovinei) in northeast Romania and SRTFC Cluj (Apuseni Mountains/Apuseni Natural Park) in northwest Romania (Figure 4). These mountain regions, with particular architectural and historical landscapes, contribute significantly to the increase in territorial connectivity and value of the national railway heritage.
The multi-layered crosstabs between qualitative elements included in the study (e.g., train category, services, or train type) and the presence of a railway station in resorts of both national and local interest reveal noteworthy results related to our hypothesis and provide a basis for potential policy recommendations. Tourism resorts of national interest exhibit low rail accessibility, as most (eight out of ten) do not have their own railway station (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Even among local rural resorts that have a railway station, lower train categories dominate (Regio type—‘R’ in ten out of 19 resorts) (Figure 5), including both private and public operators (Figure 7), and mainly offer basic services (Figure 6). These findings indicate that such resorts are not well suited for developing long-haul tourism products with a rail component at the moment and exemplify settlements within major rural clusters in Bucovina and the Apuseni Mountains, as illustrated in Figure 4.
For rural settlements without their own station, the distance to the nearest municipality’s railway station varies considerably—from 4 to 100 km—highlighting rail access as a case-specific issue for each microregion and individual resort (Table 2).
As outlined above, hypothesis 2 of our study could only partially be validated, as most resorts (93 out of 114) do not have direct access to a railway station. However, the significant weight assigned to the railway station in the overall index is justified, as it remains essential for providing tourist accessibility to rail transport. Indirect access to stations, conferred to rural areas by nearby municipalities, therefore continues to play an important role in the total index and is indirectly supported by train frequency (Figure 8), an indicator directly related to and influencing tourist arrivals in rural resorts in Romania (Figure 9). These results underscore the pivotal role of railway stations in rail transport, corroborate previous studies, and further emphasize the need to redevelop them to support integrative planning for rural tourism products that incorporate a sustainable rail transport component.
4.3. Train Frequency—A Key Factor for Rail Tourism Accessibility in Rural Areas in Romania
The train frequency indicator (number of trains/day) with a total weight of 30% in the total rail accessibility index was structured in five intervals (Figure 8). The Apuseni Mountains area, crossed by the 300 railway line, which connects Cluj-Napoca to Oradea and extends across the border to Budapest Keleti, has the highest number of daily trains. Most of the other resorts are served by fewer than 18 trains per day. Second in the ranking of rail traffic density is the Bucovina area, which falls into the second category 2 (11–20 trains/day).
Descriptive statistics on numerical variables, such as train frequency, reveal substantial differences between stations served by only 2 trains per day and hub stations served by up to 180 trains per day (e.g., Snagov–Ilfov, located near Bucharest) (Table 3).
An important finding is the correlation of this numerical variable, which shows significant results in the Pearson test when related to tourist arrivals (Figure 9) and functional accommodation capacity (Figure 10). The Pearson test indicates a weak but significant positive correlation, reflecting the secondary role of rail transport—and particularly train frequency—compared with road transport in determining tourism attractiveness for rural resorts in Romania, which currently rely primarily on regional itinerant road circuits. Nevertheless, the results support hypothesis 3, highlighting the clear importance of train frequency within a 24 h period for the rail accessibility index, which can be linked to tourist attractiveness and potential development.
4.4. Train Comfort—A Determinant for Rural Travelers’ Preference for Rail Transport in Romania
The distribution of train categories among operators reflects a regulated interdependence between the public and private sectors, as reflected by both map (Figure 11) and descriptive statistics (Figure 12). For example, Regio trains are the most liberalized, being operated by both CFR and private operators, who receive financial compensation from the state for serving isolated localities (Cireașă, 2019). The InterRegio and InterRegio Night categories are mainly operated by CFR, although private operators such as Softrans or Astra Trans Carpatic offer InterRegio trains on popular routes (e.g., Craiova–Brașov, Arad–Bucharest), but only under free market conditions and without public support (CFR Călători—S.A., 2022). InterCity trains have been operated exclusively by CFR Călători since 2022, as part of a national strategy to rebrand quality rail transport (CFR Călători—S.A., 2024). Regio trains are intended for short-distance travel, especially in rural or semi-urban areas, stopping at all intermediate stations. They are characterized by low fares and a minimum level of comfort and are often used for daily commuting (CFR Călători—S.A., 2024). Regio-Express trains combine elements of Regio and InterRegio trains, reducing the number of stops but maintaining affordable fares (CFR Călători—S.A., 2022) (Figure 11).
The Spearman test reveals a significant positive nonparametric correlation between the ordinal train type variables (mixed, public, and private) and the train comfort category, in which both public and private operators serve the busiest lines and offer higher or more diversified service categories for different passenger segments on these corridors (Figure 12).
The Spearman correlation tests between train category and the presence of a railway station within rural tourist resorts (Figure 13), as well as between train category and the type of rural resort (national or local interest) (Figure 14), reveal a weak but significant negative correlation. This aligns with the crosstabulation results (Figure 5), which show the predominance of lower train categories for rural resorts of national interest and/or those with their own railway station. These findings do not support our hypothesis and instead indicate a lack of investment in train comfort and service quality, highlighting limitations in the role of rail transport for rural tourism development in Romania.
The fifth indicator analyzed in the study, the number and type of services, shows an obvious distribution according to the train category: first-class, second-class, and bicycle racks are found on Regio, Regio-Express, and InterRegio trains and sometimes in Intercity trains (Figure 15). Trains equipped with sleeper cars are part of the InterRegio Night category. Similar to certain previous indicators, the highest values are recorded in resorts in the Apuseni Mountains and Bucovina, considered long-haul train destinations and located at the end point of some of the longest railways routes in Romania (București Nord—Buzău—Bacău—Suceava—Vatra Dornei; Iași—Suceava—Vatra Dornei—Cluj; București Nord—Brașov—Cluj-Napoca—Oradea). Isolated high values for this indicator also appear in other resorts located near Romania’s main railway lines, which connect the country’s major geographical regions. For example, in the southwest region, trains that run on the international route comprising Bucharest North—Craiova—Drobeta Turnu Severin—Timișoara or Craiova—Târgu Jiu—Deva—Arad and which display a diversity of facilities (such as sleeping cars, mobile restaurants, first-class comfort, Wi-Fi access, or bicycle transport) indicate a higher score for certain settlements (e.g., Berzasca, Mehadia, Peștișani, Băile Călacea, etc.) (Figure 15).
In addition to the two major clusters identified following spatial analysis—namely Bucovina and the Apuseni Mountains—there is a significant dispersion of rural tourist resorts in the southern part of the country, especially in the southern Carpathians and the southern sector of the western Carpathians, which shows a high degree of territorial individualization, determined by the mountainous geomorphological structure and local cultural specificity (e.g., Albeștii de Muscel, Lerești, Dâmbovicioara, Voineasa, Polovragi, Runcu, Baia de Fier, Crivaia, Coronini, Mehadia, etc.) (Figure 15). Usually located along the valleys of rivers flowing south (tributaries of the Danube), these settlements are poorly connected to the national railway network, being generally served by secondary, non-electrified, and poorly modernized lines. Rail accessibility is provided by regional trains, which run infrequently and make frequent stops, providing local connections between villages and communes in the area and urban railway hubs.
Access from major urban centers typically requires transfers from higher-level interregional trains to regional trains at intermediate stations. Complementing rail transport, access to these resorts is further supported by intermodal mobility systems—particularly local road networks operated by regional transport providers—which cover the final leg of the tourist journey.
The Spearman correlation test shows a significant negative nonparametric correlation between service type and number and direct access to a railway station (Figure 16), consistent with the crosstabulation results (Figure 6). This finding complements previous results and also invalidates our study hypothesis, indicating that rural tourism resorts with indirect access to railway stations often benefit from higher-comfort trains with better service quality, as these hub stations are typically associated with neighboring urban settlements.
4.5. Railway Accessibility Index for Rural Tourism Resorts
Based on the five main indicators: the existence of a railway station within the resort’s administrative–territorial unit (ATU) or its vicinity; daily train frequency (total number of trains/day); the available categories of trains (Regio, InterRegio, InterCity, etc.); the type of rail transport operator in the area; and the range of services offered to passengers (comfort class, sleeper car, restaurant car, etc.), the railway accessibility index for rural tourism resorts in Romania shows five main patterns of rail accessibility.
The first pattern, with an index of values between 0% and 50%, includes rural tourist resorts that do not have direct access to the national railway infrastructure. The elements determining such low values for the index are mainly related to the accidental relief forms, which significantly limit the possibilities for expanding the railway network (Figure 17).
This also explains the low frequency of trains and the absence of a railway station within the administrative area or in the vicinity of the resort. Remote areas with very few inhabitants and an aged and less mobile population that lives in precarious conditions also explains why these settlements show the exclusive presence of Regio trains with minimal services (second class).
The areas facing this lack of rail accessibility are located in the Carpathian regions of Maramureș (Săpânța, Oncești, Bârsana, Botiza, Ieud, Moisei, Ocna Șugatag) and Szeklerland (Ciumani, Praid, Corund, Lupeni, Zetea); the mountainous and subcarpathic areas of Vâlcea County (Voineasa, Mălaia, Vaideeni, Costești), Argeș (Lerești, Albeștii de Muscel), Dâmbovița (the Peștera–Padina tourist area), and Prahova (Cheia); and in the Întorsura Buzăului area (Vama Buzăului and Sita Buzăului), located mainly in the eastern, southern and southeastern Carpathians.
The second pattern, with a range of values of the index of between 51% and 60%, refers to a significant number of resorts which, despite their direct access to the railway station within the ATU (as in the case of the tourist area of Bucovina), have a low frequency of trains and benefit from basic services, limited to Regio trains. This pattern describes rural tourism resorts located at the end of rail corridors (e.g., Bucharest—Vatra Dornei). Other settlements such as Gura Siriului, Crivaia, Trei Ape, Semenic, Râu de Mori, Sălașu de Sus, Vața de Jos, Boghiș, Ciumani, and Mădăraș, obtain the same low score and enter the second accessibility category due to the presence of a railway station in the vicinity of the ATU and a moderate train frequency, also displaying modest comfort trains with a low number of services.
Rural tourism resorts with an index value between 61% and 70% are crossed by important railway lines, such as Railway 100 (Bucharest North—Craiova—Timișoara North) or Railway 300 (Bucharest North—Brașov—Cluj-Napoca—Oradea), which ensures the existence of InterRegio trains, equipped with diversified services (2nd and 1st class sleeper cars, restaurant/bar cars). Some of these resorts are located in the vicinity of major railway stations, where these trains make regular stops. This is the case, for example, for certain settlements in the Apuseni Natural Park (Vadu Crișului, Săcuieu, Mărgău, Beliș, the Fântânele area, Muntele Băișorii), where ecotourism is also experiencing rapid development.
Resorts with scores between 71% and 80% in the rail accessibility index benefit from their location on busy railway corridors, displaying a large number of trains per day with diversified services. The Apuseni Mountains region is a clear example of a concentration of such resorts, being crossed by the 300 main rail line, which connects Cluj-Napoca to Oradea and includes stops at numerous stations located in the river valleys of this mountainous area. This category also includes individual resorts located on main rail lines, such as Turnu Ruieni and Teliucu Inferior, crossed by Railway 100 (Bucharest North—Timișoara—Arad—Curtici).
The highest level of accessibility (81–100%) is specific to resorts located near the country’s major railway hubs, such as Brașov, Buzău, Bucharest North, Focșani, Deda, Cluj-Napoca, and Timișoara North. The proximity to these major stations, which also represent major urban tourist destinations in Romania, significantly increase train frequency as well as train categories that offer a large number of various services. The railway infrastructure associated with these hubs has been modernized (electrified and double tracks) and supports both passenger and freight transport, for domestic and international destinations (Hungary, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova). An essential aspect is the efficient integration into intermodal transport networks, which connect these railway hubs to rural resorts by direct road services (e.g., Bran and Moieciu—from Brașov; Soveja—from Focșani; Snagov—from Bucharest; Vama—from Sighetu Marmației).
The results obtained from the calculation of the rail accessibility index show a high level of rail accessibility (81–100%) in resorts such as Sâncraiu, Măguri-Răcătău, Băile Călacea, Moieciu, Bran, Snagov, Sărata Monteoru, Urechești, Soveja, and Deda. The highest indirect rail accessibility values—up to 90%—are recorded by settlements such as Bran, Măguri-Răcătău, Moieciu, Sărata Monteoru, Snagov, and Sâncraiu. Although these administrative–territorial units do not have their own railway station, they benefit from a direct and efficient road connection to nearby urban centers with important railway stations. These railway hubs are served by a large number of daily trains, including all categories—from regional to interregional and intercity trains—operated by both public and private providers. At the same time, the high frequency of trains, the diversity of available routes, and the wide range of services offered on board (such as higher classes, internet access, sleeper cars, or facilities for cyclists) contribute significantly to the attractiveness of these destinations and their functional integration into regional tourist mobility networks.
5. Discussion
Modern and well-equipped trains can become part of the tourist destination, not just a simple means of transport. Additionally, the touristic appeal of rural or mountainous regions could be directly enhanced by the existence of well-equipped trains, which provide not only connectivity but also an enjoyable, sustainable, and accessible experience for the general public. Among the main shortcomings affecting tourist accessibility in Romania is the transport infrastructure, particularly the rail system, which is characterized by outdated rolling stock, frequent delays, and rather low comfort conditions. Tourism infrastructure itself often displays an imbalance between quality and price, a lack of facilities for people with disabilities, and a deficient tourist information and signage system. These shortcomings are amplified by inefficient public governance, characterized by poor collaboration between local and central authorities. With two-thirds of the railway network exceeding its projected lifespan, investments in Romania’s railway network are constantly growing, but remain insufficient to close the gap with central and western Europe (Șuțu, 2023).
Therefore, rail access to tourist resorts in Romania is limited, with many lines closed and to a great extent still non-electrified due to lack of profitability, in contrast with tourist destinations in western and central European countries, where the rail infrastructure is modern and efficient, promoting tourism through extensive networks and high-speed trains (TGV, ICE). Romania lags behind other European countries—such as Switzerland, Austria, and Germany—due to inconsistent investment, low traffic speeds, and deteriorated infrastructure (CFR Călători—S.A., 2024).
Both electric trains and hybrid and battery-powered electric trains have a lower environmental impact and benefit from regenerative braking technology, reducing both fuel and energy consumption (Kapetanović et al., 2021; Popovich et al., 2021; Fayad et al., 2022; Akay & Ustaoglu, 2022). They are therefore more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly than diesel trains (Figure 4), representing a more sustainable form of rail transport and potentially playing a key role in the economic and tourism development of Romania’s rural areas. According to the Jipa (2024) local strategies in Romania should be developed to revitalize secondary rail networks and improve tourist access to mountainous and rural areas. At the same time, public–private partnerships (PPPs) should be proposed to reactivate tourist railway lines that do not meet European profitability criteria but have significant economic and tourist potential.
Significant funds for rail transport modernization come from the Large Infrastructure Operational Program (POIM), which supports the railway lines in the extended TEN-T network, and from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), which finances the electrification and rehabilitation of routes essential for the transition to green transport (Jipa, 2024). However, only about 37% of the railway network is electrified, which limits sustainable development, especially in rural areas, where diesel trains predominate (CFR Călători—S.A., 2024). The accessibility to rural tourist resorts, where diesel trains predominate, due to outdated infrastructure and low passenger numbers, is therefore the most affected.
The modernization of railway stations is also a crucial issue, as it can either enhance or hinder tourist attractiveness for rail-based tourism in rural areas. In 2018, CFR SA managed only 808 passenger railway stations, compared with 1300 in 1990. Over nearly three decades, a total of 411 stations were closed, and only 47 were modernized in Romania, according to the AGIR report (AGIR, 2019).
The recent administrative efforts to develop local and regional tourism in Romania, including the establishment of destination management organizations (DMOs), can play a vital role in promoting and supporting rail accessibility. Although these tourism management structures do not hold direct responsibilities for infrastructure management, their influence on strategic planning and stakeholder coordination could be significant. This is especially important given that many of these resorts currently face challenges, such as the closure of unprofitable secondary rail lines, infrastructure degradation, and the absence of modern rail connections—factors that limit tourist flows and hinder the sustainable development of these regions (Jipa, 2024; CFR Călători—S.A., 2024).
Rail accessibility can support various forms of tourism in rural areas, and DMOs can play a key role in revitalizing rural tourism by attracting funding, promoting sustainable transport, and encouraging the integrated use of existing infrastructure. This is evident in regions such as Bucovina and Maramureș, where regional DMOs actively promote ecological and cultural resources and benefit from rail connections to Bucharest and other major urban tourist hubs. In order to develop rail accessibility to tourist resorts in rural areas of Romania, where direct connections are limited and train speed is very low (Table 4), a strategic plan of the Transport Ministry has proposed to reactivate and modernize secondary or freight lines that cross rural areas with high tourist potential (e.g., Vața de Jos, Băile Herculane Sat (in southwest Romania), Lăzarea (in the eastern Carpathians), and Gura Humorului Sat sau Vama (Bucovina region) (CFR Călători—S.A., 2024; Jipa, 2024)). Temporary trains on routes such as Ilva Mică—Lunca Ilvei—Rodna, Zlatna—Almașu Mare—Cărpiniș or Covasna—Comandău are also envisaged to revitalize ecotourism and cultural tourism routes (Jipa, 2024). The reopening of secondary rail lines that cross newly declared tourism destination areas, along with the revitalization and preservation of low-traffic lines at risk of closure, could represent feasible opportunities within the current strategic framework.
Examples of disaffected rural railways that cross interesting and valuable natural and cultural areas and which could be revitalized today include the Ilva Mică—East Vatra Dornei line (via Rodna) and the Sucevița—Putna line, integrated into the DMO Bucovina, as well as the Târgu Mureș—Band—Sovata Băi line (via Praid). Mainly built between the wars and also during communist periods, these lines are located in isolated areas and were used to serve commercial transport (e.g., for wood, minerals, and agricultural products) and rural population mobility. Examples of such lines that were functional during the interwar period and currently overlap with rural tourism resorts include that in the Lotru Valley, including Voineasa and Mălaia, or that in Argeș crossing Lerești and Albeștii de Muscel villages and connecting the Iezer-Păpușa Mountains with Câmpulung Muscel, both formerly used for wood transport.
6. Conclusions
The railway accessibility index of rural tourism resorts in Romania shows that, from both geographical and tourism planning perspectives, the highest levels of rail accessibility are found in the Bucovina region, and, particularly in the Apuseni Mountains area, which overlaps a natural park area (IUCN V category). Railways facilitate territorial connectivity and supports the integration of these regions into regional and national tourist circuits and could possibly offer an advantage to rail infrastructure and transport services for the strategic development planning of rural tourism and ecotourism. Increased accessibility contributes significantly to the development of rural tourism and agrotourism, promoting local economic growth and supporting the principles of environmental sustainability and should potentially reduce carbon emissions associated with individual road transport.
Specifically, this study highlights the link between the rail transport system, on the one hand, and the tourist network of nationally and locally approved resorts in rural Romania, on the other, as an obvious relationship that aims to describe rail tourist accessibility from a sustainable perspective. As explained above, the indicators used in this empirical research are somewhat directly influenced by national passenger rail companies, accounting for a certain percentage of the rail accessibility index of national and local tourist resorts in rural areas. The rail accessibility index shows average values ranging from 51.1% to 60% for most resorts analyzed in the study.
Both descriptive statistics and mapping techniques applied to analyze, test, and visualize the main index components (data variables) contributed to validating our study hypotheses within the current socio-economic and policy context.
The first hypothesis is invalidated in the present investment framework, which highlights an outdated infrastructure—particularly non-electrified secondary lines—serving numerous rural tourist resorts, mainly in remote mountain areas.
This is further confirmed by the status of rural railway stations, as many resorts with direct rail access are crossed by very few trains that provide low levels of service. Consequently, the second study hypothesis can only be partially validated, underscoring that an advantage for rural resorts lies in their indirect access to hub stations in nearby urban settlements.
Train frequency emerges as a key component of the railway accessibility index for rural tourism resorts in Romania, as confirmed statistically by descriptive analysis which supports the study’s third hypothesis. Even in cases of indirect station access, tourist arrivals in rural resorts are positively influenced, albeit secondarily, by higher train frequencies in nearby urban areas.
The pivotal role of urban hub stations is also emphasized by significant Spearman rank correlations, which reveal weak but significant negative relationships between the presence of a railway station and several qualitative variables (e.g., services and the train comfort category). According to recent reports (CFR Călători—S.A., 2024), the number and type of services strongly influence tourists’ perception of train travel and, consequently, their decision to adopt this mode of transport. Perceived comfort, a sense of safety, opportunities for work or socialization during the journey, and the aesthetic experience (rural panoramas, contact with local heritage) contribute to making rail an attractive form of tourist mobility, particularly in the context of growing interest in reducing the carbon footprint.
Based on the above results, which combine existing rail accessibility with tourism attractiveness and the presence of tourism administrative structures and organizations, several policy and investment recommendations can be formulated. These should primarily focus on the following: -. Accelerating investments in rail infrastructure improvement for clusters of rural tourist resorts in regions particularly interested in developing rural communities around cultural tourism products and ecotourism linked to mountain resources, where accessibility is currently low. Priority actions should include connecting the tourist resorts of Apuseni and Bucovina to the Cluj–Oradea and Suceava–Ilva Mică rail corridors, respectively, as well as electrifying the main Maramureș railway and extending local connections to this currently non-modernized line; -. Improving rail connections and train frequency to rural resorts of national importance, such as Costinești (youth seaside tourism), Moneasa (spa tourism), Sucevița (UNESCO heritage site), and Ocna Șugatag (spa and ethnographic tourism), all of which currently display low or very low rail accessibility index values. -. Focusing on complex tourism–administrative areas that bring together rural resorts of both national and local importance and overlap with recently established DMO structures. Examples include the Sucevița–Putna area, currently linked by rail line 513 (Suceava–Rădăuți–Putna), which could be extended toward the Marginea–Sucevița rural resorts. Another example is the modernization and repurposing of industrial railways in Maramureș to develop sustainable, eco-friendly rail tourism within the associated DMO; -. Modernizing existing rail infrastructure and extending secondary lines from main corridors to nearby rural regions. For instance, extending and upgrading the București–Craiova–Târgu Jiu–Simeria–Arad corridor would improve access to rural resorts such as Săcelu, Runcu, Peștișani, Sălașu de Sus, Teliucu Inferior, and Ghioroc. Similarly, along the Argeș Valley (București–Pitești–Câmpulung), improved connections could support access to Albeștii de Muscel, Lerești, and Dâmbovicioara resorts; -. Increasing train frequency from big cities to terminus rural destinations (e.g., Oradea to Vadu Crișului, Șuncuiuș, Bratca, Poieni, Budureasa, Stâna de Valea; Cluj Napoca—to Beliș, Fântânele, Măguri, Răcătău, Băișorii Mountain area; Galați—Brăila to Lacul Sărat resort; Brașov to Barcani, Sita Buzăului, Vama Buzăului; Reșița to Crivaia, Trei Ape, and Semenic).
Far from exhausting the very generous and at the same time very topical subject of the tourist importance of railways in Romania, this study aims to provide an overview of Romania’s tourist landscape through the lens of rail accessibility, particularly in the context of the increasing number of rural tourist resorts and the recent intensification of territorial planning for tourism purposes.
By analyzing official data and compiling it into a railway tourist accessibility index, the study identifies patterns and highlights the positioning of specific resorts and regions, including clusters of rural tourism resorts, where rail access remains both relevant and strategic. These insights should influence local and regional investment decisions and support the development of integrated, sustainable tourism products tailored to the needs of rural economies for the concerned regions. Our study highlights exploratory empirical scientific results, which fills in a gap in the scientific literature that is missing specific literature related to this topic in terms of the Romanian context.
Focusing mainly on a synthetical rail accessibility index developed by mapping software techniques, the present study also has some inherent limitations. Some of these could also represent further research directions. One important limit was generated by the lack of data (e.g., rail travelers for tourism purposes in Romania) as well as the non-harmonized statistics for tourism and transport domains which made it difficult to match data for the study sample and which prevented us from performing more elaborate quantitative analysis. Another limitation would be the lack of qualitative data, which may constitute the objective of a future study on rail tourism attractiveness topic.
Conceptualization, A.-N.J. and A.-I.L.-D.; data curation, A.-N.J. and A.-I.L.-D.; formal analysis, A.-N.J., A.-I.L.-D. and C.T.; funding acquisition, A.-N.J.; methodology, A.-N.J., A.-I.L.-D. and C.T.; software A.-N.J. and A.-I.L.-D.; validation A.-N.J., A.-I.L.-D., C.T. and A.G.; writing-original draft preparation, A.-N.J., A.-I.L.-D., C.T., A.G. and A.-M.R.-M.; writing—review and editing A.-N.J., A.-I.L.-D. and C.T.; supervision, A.-I.L.-D., C.T. and A.G.; project administration, A.-I.L.-D., C.T. and A.-M.R.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions that considerably improved the initial manuscript of this paper.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Methodological workflow.
Figure 4 The presence of railway stations in rural tourism resorts in Romania.
Figure 5 Multi-layered crosstabulation between train category and the presence of a railway station in rural resorts.
Figure 6 Multi-layered crosstabulation between train services and the presence of a railway station in rural resorts.
Figure 7 Multi-layered crosstabulation between train type and the presence of a railway station in rural resorts.
Figure 8 Train frequency in rural tourism resorts in Romania.
Figure 9 Pearson correlation between train frequency and tourist arrivals.
Figure 10 Pearson correlation between train frequency and accommodation in function.
Figure 11 Railway accessibility of rural tourism resorts in Romania by rail operator type and train category.
Figure 12 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between train type and train comfort category.
Figure 13 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the presence of a railway station in rural resorts and the train comfort category.
Figure 14 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the type of rural resort and train comfort category.
Figure 15 Railway accessibility of rural tourism resorts in Romania according to the number and type of services provided by trains (1st and 2nd class coaches, bicycle racks, sleeper cars, restaurant/bar cars).
Figure 16 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the presence of a railway station in rural resorts and train services.
Figure 17 Railway accessibility index for rural tourism resorts in Romania.
Strengths and weaknesses of diesel and electric trains.
| Diesel Train | Electric Train |
|---|---|
| Accessibility in non-electrified areas | Operate on electrified railway sections but with higher speed |
| Unaffected by meteorological phenomena | May be affected by meteorological phenomena (torrential rain, heat wave, storms) |
| Can supplement if the power grid fails | Cannot run if the power grid fails |
| Pollutes though the emissions burned after diesel | Non-polluting (except rolling stock friction) |
| Traction capacity is low (up to a maximum of 8 wagons) | High transport capacity (high traction power of wagons) |
| Noise and discomfort for travelers | Reduced noise pollution |
Descriptive statistics for distance to the nearest municipality’s railway station.
| Median | Mean | Mode | Standard Deviation | Sample Variance | Minimum | Maximum | Count | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance | 29 | 33.6 | 10 | 21.3 | 453 | 4 | 100 | 114 |
Descriptive statistics for train frequency.
| Median | Mean | Mode | Standard Deviation | Sample Variance | Minimum | Maximum | Count | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 15 | 22.3 | 15 | 24.3 | 593 | 2 | 180 | 114 |
Synthetic table describing rail accessibility and train frequency related to DMOs in Romania.
| DMO | Railway | Train | Operating Speed | Direct Connection Rural Tourist Resorts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Țara Dornelor | Limited | 15 | 34 km/h | Șaru Dornei, Dorna Candrenilor, Dorna Arini, Poiana Stampei, Ciocănești, Panaci |
| Maramureș | Good | 6 | 29 km/h | Săpânța, Oncești, Botiza, Ocna Șugatag, Ieud, Moisei, Bârsana |
| Sucevița—Putna | Good | 3 | 33 km/h | Putna, Sucevița, Moldovița, Vatra Moldoviței, Frumosu, Mănăstirea Humorului, Moldovița |
| Vama Buzăului | Limited | 6 | 35 km/h | Sita Buzăului, Barcani, Vama Buzăului |
| Bucovina | Good | 14 | 54 km/h | Coșna, Vama, Sadova, Fundul Moldovei, |
| Monteorul | Limited | 84 | 60 km/h | Sărata Monteoru |
| Cheia Măneciu | Limited | 9 | 35 km/h | Cheia |
| Ținutul Vrancei | Limited | 42 | 50 km/h | Soveja, Urechești |
AGIR. Studiu privind infrastructura de transport feroviar: Consiliul Concurentei recomanda preluarea terminalelor CFR Marfa de catre CFR Infrastructura, pentru imbunatatirea transportului pe calea ferata (III). Univers Ingineresc; 2019; 24, Available online: https://www.agir.ro/univers-ingineresc/numar-24-2019/ (accessed on 30 August 2025).
Akay, M. E.; Ustaoglu, A. Energetic, exergetic, and environmental evaluation of railway transportation by diesel and electric locomotives. AIChE Journal Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy; 2022; 41,
Baker, J. C. T. Mobility, tropicality and landscape: The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, 1881. Journal of Historical Geography; 2014; 44, pp. 133-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2013.11.003]
Bergantino, A. S.; Buonarota, M.; Buongiorno, A.; Intini, M. Regional multimodal accessibility: Policies and strategies for sustainable tourism destinations in coastal areas. Research in Transportation Business & Management; 2023; 48, 100872.
Bielska, A.; Borkowski, A. S.; Czarnecka, A.; Delnicki, M.; Kwiatkowska-Malina, J.; Piotrkowska, M. Evaluating the potential of suburban and rural areas for tourism and recreation, including individual short-term tourism under pandemic conditions. Scientific Reports; 2022; 12,
Blayac, T.; Bougette, P.; Laroche, F. An analysis of intermodal competition and multiproduct Incumbent’s strategies in the French market: What drive high-speed trains’ prices and frequencies?. Transport Policy; 2024; 156, pp. 25-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.07.016]
Bostan, I.; Lazăr, C. M.; Asalos, N. Shifting the horse’s role from rural subsistence activities to the leisure industry in the context of maintaining the goal of breeding improvement. The case of Romania. Journal of Rural Studies; 2020; 80, pp. 481-489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.030]
Bouraima, M. B.; Alimo, P. K.; Agyeman, S.; Sumo, P. D.; Lartey-Young, G.; Ehebrecht, D.; Qiu, Y. Africa’s railway renaissance and sustainability: Current knowledge, challenges, and prospects. Journal of Transport Geography; 2023; 106, 103487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103487]
CFR Călători—S.A. Noutăţi CFR Călători în planul de mers de tren 2023/2024; 2022; Available online: https://www.cfrcalatori.ro/comunicate/noutati-cfr-calatori-in-planul-de-mers-de-tren-2023-2024/ (accessed on 23 July 2025).
CFR Călători—S.A. Rețeau feroviară; 2024; Available online: https://cfr.ro/ct-menu-item-82/ (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Cheng, L.; Chen, Y.; He, S.; Wang, Z.; Jin, T.; Yang, M. Comparing accessibility to high-speed rail stations by public transit and cars: A national-scale analysis. Journal of Transport Geography; 2025; 123, 104105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.104105]
Cireașă, D. Șeful ARF către directorul CFR Călători: Costurile medii vă cresc. Nu e nimic tendențios aici; 2019; Available online: https://clubferoviar.ro/seful-arf-catre-directorul-cfr-calatori-costurile-medii-va-cresc-nu-e-nimic-tendentios/ (accessed on 23 July 2025).
Condei, R.; Alecu, I. N.; Popescu, A.; Ciocan, H. N. Analysis of human resources involved in rural tourism in Romania. Lucrări științifice Management, Inginerie ecnomică în agricultură și dezvoltare rurală; 2016; 16, 2.
Cong, W.; Zhou, J.; Lai, Y. The coordination between citywide rail transit accessibility and land-use characteristics in Shenzhen, China: An explorative analysis based on multidimensional spatial data. Sustainable Cities and Society; 2024; 113, 105691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105691]
Deng, F.; Tian, Q.; Arif, M. Assessing the shifts in spatiotemporal ecotourism accessibility driven by high-speed rail development in China. Habitat International; 2025; 164, 103514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103514]
Du, J.; Zhao, B.; Feng, Y. Spatial distribution and influencing factors of rural tourism: A case study of Henan Province. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e29039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29039]
Fayad, A.; Ibrahim, I.; Ilinca, A.; Amamu, A. Energy recovering using regenerative braking in diesel–electric passenger trains: Economical and technical analysis of fuel savings and GHG emission reductions. Energies; 2022; 15, 37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15010037]
Fávero, L. P.; Belfiore, P. Fávero, L. P.; Belfiore, P. Chapter 4—Bivariate descriptive statistics. Data science for business and decision making; Academic Press: 2019; pp. 93-123.
Fedorenko, R.; Khmeleva, G.; KurnikovaM,. Border proximity, ports, and railways: Analyzing their impact on county-level economic dynamics in hungary, 2001–2020. Economies; 2023; 11, 278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/economies11110278]
Feng, L.; Hu, J.; Wu, K.; Huang, M.; Hu, M. Investigating the role of green mobility in coupling coordination of urbanization and ecological environment: Evidence from high-speed rail accessibility. Transport Policy; 2025; 170, pp. 24-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.05.009]
Feng, X. B. Coupling and coordinated development of traffic accessibility and regional tourism economy. Transportation Business & Management; 2023; 104, 104938.
Gherasim, D. Tourism rural în Romania. Economy Transdiciplinarity Cognition; 2012; 1, pp. 279-283.
Hansson, J.; Pettersson-Löfstedt, F.; Svensson, H.; Wretstrand, A. Replacing regional bus services with rail: Changes in rural public transport patronage in and around villages. Transport Policy; 2021; 101, pp. 89-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.12.002]
Jipa, A.-N. Tendințe de dezvoltare a traseelor feroviare ca resurse turistice în România. Studiu de caz: Căile ferate scenice. Disertation thesis; Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest: 2024.
Kapetanović, M.; Nenez, A.; Oort Oan, N.; Goverde, R. M. P. Reducing fuel consumption and related emissions through optimal sizing of energy storage systems for diesel-electric trains. Applied Energy; 2021; 294, 117018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117018]
Kathun, R.; Aditya, M. T.; Rifaat, S. M.; Mahmud, R. A quantitative analysis of assessing passengers’ satisfaction level of inter-city train services in Bangladesh. Case Studies on Transport Policy; 2025; 21, 101477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101477]
Koohmishi, M.; Kaewunruen, S.; He, X.; Guo, Y. Advancing railway sustainability: Strategic integration of circular economy principles in ballasted track systems. Journal of Cleaner Production; 2025; 490, 144713. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144713]
Lequeux-Dincă, A. I.; Teodorescu, C. Governance and development of tourism in rural areas through the lens of media in South Bukovina (Romania). Agriculture; 2024; 14, 1462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091462]
Liu, Z.; Zhang, M. Can rural counties benefit from high-speed rail investments? The distributive economic impacts of constructing the Dallas-Houston line. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives; 2024; 27, 101234.
Lumsdon, L. Transport and tourism: Cycle tourism—A model for sustainable development?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 2000; 8, pp. 361-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667373]
Mercier, A.; Ovtracht, N.; Bonnafous, A. Analyzing impacts of a new rail line on tourist attractiveness using accessibility: The case of the Sud Europe Atlantique high-speed line. Transportation Research Procedia; 2025; 82, pp. 405-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.067]
Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Tourism. List of localities certified as tourist resorts of national or local interest; 2022; Available online: https://turism.gov.ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Statiuni-actualizare.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Morikawa, S.; Aoyama, M.; Kato, H. Development of railway station plazas: Impact on land prices of surrounding areas. Transport Policy; 2023; 142, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.06.002]
Pan, M.; Dahal, P.; Lim, H.; Pandey, B. Geospatial analysis of freight accessibility and job attraction: The role of interstate ramps, airports, ports, and rail. Journal of Transport Geography; 2025; 123, 104131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104131]
Peira, G.; Lo Giudice, A.; Miraglia, S. Railway and tourism: A systematic literature review. Tourism and Hospitality; 2022; 3, pp. 69-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3010005]
Popa, L. 17 ani de fonduri europene. “Politica de coeziuni a eșuat în România”; 2024; Available online: https://pressone.ro/17-ani-de-fonduri-europene-politica-de-coeziune-a-esuat-in-romania (accessed on 20 July 2025).
Popovich, N. D.; Rajagopal, D.; Tasar, E.; Phadke, A. Economic, environmental and grid-resilience benefits of converting diesel trains to battery-electric. Nature Energy; 2021; 6, pp. 1017-1025. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00915-5]
Rao, S.-H. Transportation synthetic sustainability indices: A case of Taiwan intercity railway transport. Ecological Indicators; 2021; 127, 107753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107753]
Romanian Government. Ordinance no. 63/1997 from 28 August 1997 regarding the establishment of facilities for the development of rural tourism; Official Gazette No. 226; Official Gazette: Bucharest, Romania: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”. 1997; Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/207232 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Romanian Government. Government Decision No. 559 from 14 June 2001; On certain measures for the marketing of food and non-food products in tourist resorts; Official Gazette No. 335; Official Gazette: Bucharest, Romania: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”. 2001; Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/29139 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Romanian Government. Government Decision No. 852 from 13 August 2008; For the approval of the norms and criteria for the certification of tourist resorts; Official Gazette No. 613; Official Gazette: Bucharest, Romania: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”. 2008; Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/public/DetaliiDocument/96733 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Romanian Government. Emergency Ordinance No. 57 from 3 July 2019; On the Administrative Code; Official Gazette No. 555; Official Gazette: Bucharest, Romania: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”. 2019; Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/215925 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Romanian Government. Government Decision No. 120 from 16 February 2024; For the approval of the designation of certain localities or parts thereof as tourist resorts of national and local interest, and for the amendment and completion of Government Decision no. 852/2008 approving the norms and criteria for the certification of tourist resorts; Official Gazette No. 147; Official Gazette: Bucharest, Romania: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”. 2024; Available online: https://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=201049 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Romanian Parliament. Law No. 351 from 6 July 2001; On the approval of the National Territory Planning Plan—Section IV: The Network of Localities; Official Gazette No. 408; Official Gazette: Bucharest, Romania: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”. 2001; Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/29780 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E.; González-Portillo, A. Limiting rural tourism: Local agency and community-based tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Tourism Management; 2024; 104, 104938. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104938]
Shafiq, M.; Marco, A.; Couto, A. Assessment of integrated rail and bus transport network design: Equity and efficiency perspectives. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives; 2025; 31, 101450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101450]
Shen, J.; Ren, X.; Feng, Z. Study on the railway effect of the coordinated development of the economy and environment in the Chengdu–Chongqing economic circle. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 3333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16083333]
Sohi, S.; Wutz, G.; Hrivanák, R.; Reiter, F.; Pichler, D.; Anjomshoaa, A.; Polleres, A. Enhancing rail transit accessibility: A data-centric approach to Park and Ride. Transportation Research Procedia; 2025; 86, pp. 405-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2025.04.051]
Stanciu, M.; Popescu, A.; Stanciu, C. Rural tourism, agrotourism and ecotourism in Romania: State of current research and future trends. Lucrări Științifice Management, Inginerie Ecnomică În Agricultură Și Dezvoltare Rurală; 2023; 23, 1.
Șuțu, C. România expirată. Două treimi din rețeaua feroviară a României au depășit durata de viață proiecată; 2023; Available online: https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/romania-expirata-doua-treimi-din-reteaua-feroviara-a-romaniei-au-depasit-durata-de-viata-proiectata-2243509 (accessed on 24 July 2025).
Vafeiadis, E.; Elldér, E. Correlates of perceived accessibility across transport modes and trip purposes: Insights from a Swedish survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice; 2024; 186,
Van Acker, M.; Triggianese, M. The spatial impact of train stations on small and medium-sized European cities and their contemporary urban design challenges. Journal of Urban Design; 2021; 26,
Vojtek, M.; Štefancová, V.; Široký, J.; Krbálková, M. Measuring the Accessibility of the Railway Network with the Possibilities of Increasing the Attractiveness of Railway Transport. Transportation Research Procedia; 2024; 77, pp. 101-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.01.013]
Wang, Q.; Lu, S. The influence of hybrid accessibility on tourism economy in prefecture-level cities: Evidence from China’s high-speed rail network. Journal of Transport Geography; 2022; 104,
Wu, Y.; Shen, T.; Li, Y.; Kita, M.; Yoshida, Y.; Sho, K.; Yuan, L.; Yu, L.; Jiang, R.; Long, Y. Exploring urban railway station-based attractiveness considering demographic-specific demands: Case study of Odakyu line, Japan. Cities; 2025; 158, 105620.
Xu, X.; Shalaby, A.; Feng, Q.; Huang, A. Identifying station importance in urban rail transit networks using a combination of centrality and time reliability measures: A case study in Beijing, China. Urban Rail Transit; 2024; 10,
Yanan, L.; Muhammad, A. I.; Aminuddin, A. How has rural tourism influenced the sustainable development of traditional villages? A systematic literature review. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e29039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25627]
Yang, X.; Li, W.; Zhang, P.; Chen, H.; Lai, M.; Zhao, S. The dynamics and driving mechanisms of rural revitalization in western China. Agriculture; 2023; 13, 1448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071448]
Yun, Y.; Zhai, J. Re-evaluating the satisfaction effects of rail transit accessibility: A comparison of local and network perspectives. Journal of Public Transportation; 2025; 27, 100131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2025.100131]
Zhuang, S.; Xia, N.; Gao, X.; Zhao, X.; Liang, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, M. Coupling coordination analysis between railway transport accessibility and tourism economic connection during 2010–2019: A case study of the Yangtze River Delta. Transportation Business & Management; 2024; 55, 101134.
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Teodorescu Camelia; Gheorghilaș Aurel; Ana-Maria, Roangheș-Mureanu