Over twenty years of effort have gone into the development of a general framework for modelling land-use and transport interaction. This effort has been directed at integrating economic theory with operational planning methods in order to establish models that are advanced in theory, practical in operation, and useful in policymaking. The cornerstone of the resulting framework is that the location of activities and the economic linkages between them (in terms of goods, services or labour) are predicted by a spatially disaggregated input—output model with either conventional or more innovative forms. These economic linkages are converted into demands for transport that are assigned to modes and routes, taking account of congestion. Calculated measures of disutility in transport influence the location of activities through time. The entire system is based on a set of markets with ‘prices’ in money, time, or disutility units, making it possible to assess the effects of input policies or scenarios in economic and social terms as well as in physical units. This framework has been used to develop a wide range of models for different applications. The experience thus gained has helped identify a number of specific strengths and specific problem areas associated with the framework. The problem areas are, for the most part, related to practical difficulties that arise during calibration because of the complexity of the system. The various strengths of the framework make it most applicable in situations where there is a need for consistent land-use and transport predictions and evaluations, particularly in cases where there are relatively few observed data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlonsoW, 1964Location and Land Use: Towards a General Theory of Land Rent (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
2.
de la BarraT, 1989Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
3.
de la BarraTPérezB, 1986, “Asymmetry in some common assignment algorithms: The dispersion factor solution”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design13293–304
4.
de la BarraTEcheniqueM HQuintanaMGuendelmanJ, 1975, “An urban regional model for the central region of Chile”, in Urban Development Models Eds BaxterR SEcheniqueM HOwersJ (Construction Press, Lancaster) pp 137–174
5.
de la BarraTPérezBVeraN, 1984, “TRANUS-J: Putting large models into small computers”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design1187–101
6.
DevereuxL SEcheniqueM HFlowerdewA D J, 1982, “Bilbao land-use and transport model”, presented at The Meeting of the International Study Group on Land-use/Transport Interaction, IIASA, Schloss Laxenburg, Vienna, Austria; copy available from Marcial Echenique and Partners, 49–51 High Street, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2HZ
7.
DialR B, 1971, “A probabilistic multi-path traffic assignment model that obviates path enumeration”Transportation Research543–111
8.
EcheniqueM H, 1977, “An integrated land-use and transport model”Transactions of the Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies2195–230
9.
EcheniqueM H, 1979, “A transport planning model for the State of São Paulo”Transactions of the Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies4275–296
10.
EcheniqueM H, 1983a, “The Sao Paulo Metropolitan Study: A case study of the effectiveness of urban system analysis”, in Systems Analysis in Urban Policy-making and Planning Eds BattyMHutchinsonB (Plenum, New York) pp 243–270
11.
EcheniqueM H, 1983b, “The use of planning models in developing countries: Some case studies”, in Urban and Regional Policy Analysis in Developing Countries Eds ChatterjeeLNijkampP (Gower, Aldershot, Hants) pp 115–158
12.
EcheniqueM H, 1986, “The practice of modelling in developing countries”, in Advances in Urban System Modelling Eds BattyMHutchinsonB (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 215–291
13.
EcheniqueM HCrowtherDLindsayW, 1969, “A spatial model for urban stock and activity”Regional Studies3281–312
14.
EcheniqueM HCrowtherDLindsayW, 1972, “A structural comparison of three generations of new towns”, in Urban Space and Structures Eds MarchLMartinL (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 219–259
15.
EcheniqueM HFlowerdewA D JHuntJ DMayoT RSkidmoreI JSimmondsD C, 1990, “The MEPLAN models of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund”Transport Reviews10309–322
16.
EcheniqueM HSimmondsD CStarrC M, 1987, “A MEPLAN model of Cambridgeshire”, proceedings of the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC, London; copy available from Marcial Echenique and Partners, 49–51 High Street, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2HZ
17.
FeoAHerreraRRiquezesJEcheniqueM H, 1975, “A disaggregated model for Caracas”, in Urban Development Models Eds BaxterR SEcheniqueM HOwersJ (Construction Press, Lancaster) pp 175–202
18.
FlowerdewA D J, 1977, “An evaluation package for a strategic land-use transportation plan”, in Urban Transportation Planning Eds BonsallPDalviQHillsP (Abacus Press, Tunbridge Wells) pp 241–258
19.
GeraldesPEcheniqueM HWilliamsI N, 1978, “A spatial economic model for Bilbao”, proceedings of the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC, London; copy available from Investimentos e Participates Empresariais SA, Av. Julio Dinis 11, 1000 Lisbon
20.
HarrisN G, 1989, “Capacity restraint simulation in a public transport environment”Traffic Engineering and Control30312–315
21.
HirtenJ EEcheniqueM H, 1979, “An operational land-use transport model for the Tehran region, Iran”Transport Research Circularnumber 199, 6–7
22.
HuffD L, 1962, “A note on the limitations of the intra-urban gravity model”Land Economics3864–66
23.
HuntJ D, 1992, “Calibrating the Naples land use and transport model”, proceedings of the Cambridge University Martin Centre Conference on Research into Practice, October 1992, Cambridge; copy available from the author
24.
JinY, 1990Locational Propensities under State Provision and Market Conditions: Retailing in Beijing 1978–88 PhD dissertation, Department of Architecture, Cambridge University, Cambridge
25.
LeontiefW, 1941The Structure of the American Economy 1919–1939 (Oxford University Press, New York)
26.
LeontiefW, 1986Input—Output Economics2nd edition (Oxford University Press, New York)
27.
LongleyP, 1984, “Discrete choice modelling and complex spatial choice: An overview”, in Recent Developments in Spatial Data Analysis Eds BahrenbergGFischerM MNijkampP (Gower, Aldershot, Hants)
28.
LowryI S, 1964Model of Metropolis (Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA)
29.
McFaddenD, 1974, “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour”, in Frontiers in Econometrics Ed. ZarembkaP (Academic Press, New York) pp 105–142
30.
MackettR L, 1983, “The Leeds Integrated Land Use Transport (LILT) model”, TRRL Supplementary Report 805, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks
31.
MarsdenA, 1984, “A model solution to Bilbao's traffic congestion”The Surveyor163(4799) 4–6
32.
PyattGThorbeckeE, 1976Planning Techniques for a Better Future (International Labour Office, Geneva)
33.
RickabyP, 1991, “Energy and urban development in an archetypal English town”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design18153–175
34.
Segal Quince Wicksteed, 1985The Cambridge PhenomenonSegal Quince Wicksteed, with Brand Brothers and Company; copy available from SQW, The Grange, Market Street, Swavesey, Cambridge CB4 5QG
SimmondsD C, 1992, “The ‘Martin Centre Model’ in practice—strengths and weaknesses”, Proceedings of the Cambridge University Martin Centre Conference on Research into Practice, October 1992, Cambridge
37.
TheilH, 1980The System-wide Approach to Microeconomics (University of Chicago Press, Chiacago, IL)
38.
TyeW BShermanLKinnucanMNelsonDTardiffT, 1982“Application of disaggregate travel demand models” NCHRP Report 253, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
39.
VarianH R, 1990Intermeidate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach2nd edition (Norton, New York)
40.
WebsterF VPaulleyN J, 1989, “Overall findings from an international study to compare models and evaluate land-use and transport policies”, proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Transport Research, Yokohama, Japan; copy available from Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks RG11 6AU
41.
WebsterF VBlyP HPaulleyN, 1988Urban Land-use and Transport Interaction: Policies and Models (Gower, Alder shot, Hants)
42.
WegenerM, 1982, “Modelling urban decline: A multi-level economic demographic model for the Dortmund region”International Regional Science Review7217–241
43.
WegenerM, 1985, “The Dortmund housing market model: A Monte Carlo simulation of a regional housing market”, in Microeconomic Models of Housing Markets Eds StahlK (Springer, Heidelberg) pp 144–191
44.
WegenerMMackettR LSimmondsD C, 1991, “One city, three models: Comparison of land-use/transport policy simulation models for Dortmund”Transport Reviews11107–129
45.
WilliamsH C W L, 1977, “On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit”Environment and Planning A9285–344
46.
WilliamsI NEcheniqueM H, 1978, “A regional model for commodity and passenger flows”, proceedings of the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC, London; copy available from Marcial Echenique and Partners, 49–51 High Street, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2HZ
47.
WilsonA G, 1970Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling (Pion, London)
48.
WingoL, 1961Transportation and Urban Land (Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD)
