Transcript Land Use and Transportation Models part 1_nov_21

Land Use and
Transportation Models
G111/211a
Draft Notes
New era




Policies aim at more complex processes
Sustainability is becoming increasingly more
popular – possibly accepted practice(?!)
Cause and effects between transportation
and land use are not one-way linear
sequences
Short, medium, and long term relationships
can now be modeled using somewhat
sophisticated tools and fast computers
CAAA – ISTEA - TEA-21
LAND USE
INTEGRATED
MODELS = AN
ACCOUNT
FOR
TWO WAY
RELATIONSHIPS
TRANSPORTATION
AIR QUALITY
It is a different and changing
policy world – European
Union, Japan, Canada,
Australia, and USA
Mobility vs Accessibility
Mobility vs accessibility
policies (Kennedy et al, 2005)
-Policy Coordination with
Packages of Policy Actions in
the EU
-Effective Governance =
Integration of Policies =
New Needs for Policy Action
Assessments =
More Informative Models
Transportation and Land Use









Land Development --> Location Choices
Location Choices --> Activities
Location Choices - Car Ownership
Activities -> Travel
Travel -> Flows
Flows -> Activity Patterns
Use Spatial Distribution
AND MANY MORE
See next
Example: Mobility as
Transit Mobility
Use land use to increase transit
use (TCRP study)
Seven Groups of Factors
(1&2/7)

Increase Residential
Density



Activity locations closer
to each other
Transit service more
economical
Other factors need to be
considered

Neighborhood Design




Mixed land use
Transit friendly designs
(think of turning radius)
Mode separation
Size!
Seven Groups of Factors
(3&4/7)

Transit Supply





Situational barriers
System & Service
(availability, frequency,
timing/flexibility)
Knowledge/information
Negative predisposition
Cost/time/comfort

Car Ownership




Number of cars
Types of cars
Specialization = more
use?
Costs (perceived and
real)
Seven Groups of Factors
(5&6/7)

Socioeconomics





Age
Gender
Income
Employment/Occupation
Social Role

Workplace/Employment
Density




Bring the CBD back!
High density suburban
centers
Campus examples
Parking?
The Seventh Factor

Accessibility



Connectivity
Amount of activities
Closeness
These factors are not
acting alone –
mediation!
Wegener’s simplified cycle
Wegener’s LU/T
Feedback Cycle
Lagged Relationships
Theories







Spatial Interaction (Distance decay functions)
Urban Land Markets (Bid rent)
Waves Theories – Urban Life Cycles (Rise and Fall)
Social Ecology (Clusters and specialized centers)
Action-space analyses -> optimal space and
location for activities
Time-budgets -> time geography -> activity-based
approaches
NEXT??????
The Von Thunen Model of Market,
Production, and Distance

R = Y(p-c) – Yfm
R = Rent per unit of land.

Y = Yield per unit of land.
p = market price per unit of yield.
c = Average production costs per unit of yield.
m = Distance from market (in kilometers or miles).
f = Freight rate per unit of yield and unit of distance.
Assumptions:



Isolation. There is one isolated market in an isolated state having no interactions
(trade) with the outside.
Ubiquitous land characteristics. The land surrounding the market in entirely flat and
its fertility uniform.
Transportation. It is assumed there are no transport infrastructures such as roads or
rivers and that farmers are transporting their production to the market using horses and
carts. Transportation costs are dependent of the type of commodity being transported
to the market as well as the distance involved.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/
The Isolated State
von Thünen, 1826
See also:
http://www.csiss.org/cla
ssics/content/9
Lessons Learned


Land Rent:
Distance Decay
Central Places
Christaller, 1933
A Central Place is a settlement
or a nodal point that serves the
area around with goods and
services (Mayhew, 1997).
Christaller's model also was
based on the premise that all
goods and services were
purchased by consumers from
the nearest central place, that
the demands placed on all
central places in the plain were
similar, and that none of the
central places made any
excessive profit. See
http://www.csiss.org/classics/c
ontent/67
Bid-Rent Theory
Alonso, 1964
Example: Bid rent theories
Diamond sales in the CBD and agriculture in the periphery – residences obey a
somewhat different law/rule
Retail Location
Huff, 1964
Huff Retail Location
Model – competitive
with explicit macrorules: see also
http://www.belkcollege.u
ncc.edu/mjkhouja/Locat
e8.ppt#261,10,Single
Facility Location Using
Cross Median Approach
Household Location
Park & Burgess, 1925
An evolutionary approach to
urban ecology:
http://www.csiss.org/classics
/content/26
Burgess Model
Isard’s Hybrid Model
Note the Corridors of
development
Action Spaces
Hägerstrand, 1970
The Brotchie Triangle
Interaction = travel time
Dispersion =
employment distance
from City centre
Theoretical
Expectations About
Relationships
From Land Use to
Transportation
From Land Use to
Transportation
From Land Use to
Transportation
From Land Use to
Transportation
Better Transportation > Better Accessibility
What happens to land use?
From Transportation to Land
Use via Accessibility
From Transportation to Land
Use via Accessibility
From Transportation to
Transportation
From Transportation to
Transportation
From Transportation to
Transportation
Ideal Designs
Monocentric – Compact City
Polycentric – Pockets of Paradise
Dispersed Development – People
Driven
Empirical (Data
analysis) Studies
General findings
From Land Use to Transport
From Land Use to Transport
Be Aware of Selectivity Issues



People that select city centers different than
people in suburbs
People that select to live in large cities
different than small town dwellers
Large portions of decision making spheres
largely neglected – school choice, effect of
family and friends, family endowments, what
else?
From Transportation to Land
Use
From Transportation to
Transportation
MODELS
Many – different time and space
resolutions and assumptions
about behavior
What we need
See Meyer and Miller
chapter 6 And Miller
in KG book
The Miller
model –
policies and
models
Models in Practice
Three Main ways to Quantify Land
Use Transport Interactions

Hypothetically change land use and ask people
what they will do differently


Create experiments were we actually change land
use and observe people behavior


Advantages and disadvantages
Advantages and disadvantages
Build computer simulators with models that show
these interactions and behavioral changes

Advantages and disadvantages
The Models
Developed
Waddell’s Taxonomy
Operational and Under Development Land Use Models
From TRB workshop by
Miller – based on Knight
and Trygg 1977
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ornl.html
Dynamics/Lags
Integration for what?
Meplan – source
Hunt/Miller TRB
workshop
Idealized Model System (TCRP
H-12)
Design & Modeling
Beyond todays LU/Trans
Websites








www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~jabraham/ MEPLAN_and_Urban_Economics.PDF
http://www.urbansim.org/
http://www.modelistica.com/tranus_english.htm
http://www.mussa.cl/E_index.html
http://www.civil.engineering.utoronto.ca/English/ILUTE-Research.html
http://www.geosimulation.org/geosim/lutms.htm
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/Modeling.shtml
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ornl.html
What else can we
change by design?
Next Models in Practice &
PROPOLIS Examples