Conventional approaches to measuring accessibility benefits are not capable of fully measuring the total accessibility benefits of integrated land-use-transport strategies, in which both land-use and transport changes form part of the policy strategy. In this paper a comprehensive methodology for analysing accessibility impacts and accessibility benefits, which is based on location-based and utility-based accessibility measures within an integrated land-use-transport interaction modelling framework, is described and applied in a case study. The case study examines the accessibility benefits and related user benefits of intensive mixed-use strategies aimed at increasing the density and diversity of activities around railway stations for the Randstad area of the Netherlands for the 1996–2030 period. A heavy concentration of activities near railway stations is shown to result in decreasing marginal returns for public-transport users and disbenefits for car users.
AlonsoW, 1964Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
3.
AnasA, 1983, “Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models”Transportation Research Part B1713–23
4.
AVV, 2000, NVVP Beleidsopties Verkend [The National Traffic and Transport Policy options explored]AVV Transport Research Centre, PO Box 1031, Rotterdam 3000 BA
BrouwerJMattemakerLHeidaH, 2002Ruimtevraag Wonen, Werken en Voorzieningen Herberekend [Land use demand for housing, employment and services revisited]ABF Research, Verwersdijk 8, Delft 2611 NH
7.
CochraneR A, 1975, “A possible economic basis for the gravity model”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy934–49
8.
CPB, 2003Kentallen Kosten-batenanalyse Project ‘Zuidas Amsterdam’ [Cost-benefit analysis of the Amsterdam South-Axis project]CPB, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, Van Stolkweg 14, Den Haag 2585 JR
9.
DfT, 2000, “Guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies”, volume 1, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR
10.
DSC/ME & P, 1999, “Review of land-use/transport interaction models”, report to The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, David Simmonds Consultancy in collaboration with Marcial Echenique and Partners Limited, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_econappr/documents/page/dft_econappr_504941.pdf
11.
EijgenraamC J JKoopmansC CTangP J GVersterA C P, 2000, “Evaluation of infrastructural projects-guide for cost-benefit analysis”, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, Van Stolkweg 14, Den Haag 2585 JR
12.
EngelenGWhiteRde NijsT, 2003, “Environment Explorer: Spatial support system for the integrated assessment of socio-economic and environmental policies in the Netherlands”Integrated Assessment497–105
13.
EPA, 2000Projecting Land-Use Change: A Summary of Models for Assessing the Effects of Community Growth and Change on Land-Use Patterns EPA/600/R-00/98, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
14.
GeursK TRitsema van EckJ R, 2001Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications RIVM report 408505 006, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, http://www.rivm.nl
15.
GeursK TRitsema van EckJ R, 2003, “Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: The implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3069–87
16.
GeursK Tvan WeeB, 2004, “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions”Journal of Transport Geography12127–140
17.
HansenW G, 1959, “How accessibility shapes land use”Journal of American Institute of Planners2573–76
18.
Jara-DiazS R, 1986, “On the relation between users' benefits and the economic effects of transportation services”Journal of Regional Science26379–391
19.
KwanM-P, 1998, “Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework”Geographical Analysis30191–216
20.
LeonardiG, 1978, “Optimum facility location by accessibility maximizing”Environment and Planning A101287–1305
21.
LevineJ, 1998, “Rethinking accessibility and jobs–housing balance”Journal of American Planning Association6412–25
22.
McCannP, 2001Urban and Regional Economics (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
23.
MartínezF J, 1995, “Access: The transport-land-use economic link”Transportation Research Part B29457–470
24.
MartínezF J, 1996, “MUSSA: Land Use Model for Santiago City”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1552, 126–134
25.
MartínezF JArayaC, 2000a, “Transport and land-use benefits under location externalities”Environment and Planning A321611–1624
26.
MartínezF JArayaC, 2000b, “A note on trip benefits in spatial interaction models”Journal of Regional Science40789–796
27.
MillerE JKrigerD SHuntJ D, 1999, “Integrated urban models for simulation of transit and land use policies: Guidelines for implementation and use”, Transit Cooperative Research Program, report 48, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC
28.
NeuburgerH, 1971, “User benefits in the evaluation of transport and land-use plans”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy552–75
29.
NiemeierD A, 1997, “Accessibility: An evaluation using consumer welfare”Transportation24377–396
30.
NijkampPRodenburgC AVreekerR, 2003, “The economics of multifunctional land use”, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
31.
ReckerW WChenCMcNallyM G, 2001, “Measuring the impact of efficient household travel decisions on potential travel time savings and accessibility gains”Transportation Research Part A35339–369
32.
SACTRA, 1999, “Transport and the economy: Full report”, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
33.
ShenQ, 1998, “Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25345–365
34.
SimmondsD C, 2004, “Assessment of UK land-use and transport strategies using land-use/transport interaction modelling”European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research4273–293
VROM, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Rijnstraat 8, 2515 XP Den Haag 1997, “Update of the fourth national policy document on spatial planning extra—part 3”
38.
VROM, 1998a, “New key projects: The stations as a gateway to the city”
39.
VROM, 1998b, “The impact of high speed trains on urban centres”
40.
WaddellP, 2001, “UrbanSim: Modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environment planning”Journal of the American Planning Association68297–314
41.
WegenerMFürstF, 1999, “Land-use transport interaction: State of the art”, deliverable D2a of the project TRANSLAND (Integration of Transport and Land Use Planning), Berichte aus den Institut für Raumplanung 46, Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund
42.
WilliamsH C W LSeniorM L, 1978, “Accessibility, spatial interaction and the spatial benefit analysis of land-use transportation plans”, in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models Eds KarlquistL L ASnickarsFWeibullJ W, (North Holland, Amsterdam) pp 253–287
43.
WilsonA G, 1971, “A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments”Environment and Planning31–32
