Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models TAG Unit 3.1.

June 2005 Department for Transport Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG)

This Unit is part of a family which can be accessed at www.webtag.org.uk

Contents
1 2 Introduction General Principles of Land-Use Modelling 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Meaning of Land-Use 2.3 The Scope of Land-Use Models 2.4 The Main Approaches Available 2.5 Land-Use/Transport Modelling and Strategy or Plan Appraisal 2.6 Appraisal of Transport Strategies or Plans 2.7 Appraisal of Land-Use or Combined Land-Use/Transport Strategies Land-Use/Transport Interaction Models 3.1 The Main Types of Model Available 3.2 Static Models 3.3 Entropy-Based Models 3.4 Spatial-Economic Models: MEPLAN and TRANUS 3.5 Activity Models 3.6 Modelling Effects, Decisions and Markets 3.7 Data Requirements 3.8 Scope for Testing Land-Use Policies 3.9 The Appropriateness of Alternative Approaches to Land-Use Modelling Further Information References Document Provenance 1 1 1 1 4 8 10 10 12 12 12 14 14 15 15 16 17 25 25 27 27 29

4 5 6

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

1
1.1.1

Introduction
This TAG unit provides an introduction to land-use/transport interaction models. It has two sections, as follows: in Section 2, the general principles of land-use modelling are set out; and in Section 3, the different kinds of land-use model are introduced.

2
2.1 2.1.1

General Principles of Land-Use Modelling

Introduction Some studies may require the use of a land-use/transport interaction model rather than simply a transport model. In simple terms, the transport model requires inputs of land-use which have been forecast exogenously, whereas land-use/transport interaction models generate their own forecasts of land-use dependent on input land-use policies and the changes in accessibility brought about by conditions on the transport system. As land-use models are not in wide-spread use, the principles of land-use models are explained in some detail. The Meaning of Land-Use The term land-use is used throughout this report to mean a range of human activities, the state of the built environment, and also to some aspects of the natural environment. Land-use so defined is of relevance to transport for at least three reasons: land-using activities and the interactions between them generate the demands for transport; those activities and interactions are to a greater or lesser extent influenced by the availability of transport; and the linkages between transport and activities may be important to the appraisal of transport strategies - especially when trying to consider whether the transport system is providing the kinds of accessibilities that activities (i.e. people and businesses) require, rather than simply providing mobility.

2.2 2.2.1

2.2.2

2.2.3

Figure 2.1 illustrates the role of transport in relation to the different groups of people and organisations who are influenced by transport. It identifies three main categories of actors: the population, as individuals and as households; firms and other productive organisations; and government.

Page 1

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

DEVELOPERS

PROPERTY MARKET (new and secondhand buildings)

FIRMS and other producers of goods and of services

LABOUR MARKET

RESIDENTS (individuals and households)

IMPORTS

PRODUCT MARKETS

EXPORTS GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

TRANSPORT MARKETS TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPLIERS TRANSPORT SERVICE SUPLIERS

Figure 2.1

Actors and Markets in Land-Use/Transport Interaction Models

Page 2

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

2.2.4

In addition, it identifies three particular categories of actors of special interest: property developers, transport infrastructure providers, and transport service providers (e.g. public transport operators),

which may be special cases either of firms, or of government activity, or both. 2.2.5 The term land-use includes all of the elements and interactions in Figure 2.1 outside the area labelled transport, except for those particular effects which we define as environmental. Transport influences the decisions of residents and firms in a number of ways, which are considered in more detail below. Residents and firms interact with each other through a number of markets, mainly: 2.2.7 in property, labour, and goods and services.

2.2.6

Through these interactions, changes in transport may have indirect impacts on people or businesses who have no direct interest in the transport change at all. It may therefore be necessary to consider not only predicting the land-use consequences of transport change, but also the implications for appraisal of the way in which the influence of transport is passed on through the interactions of different actors. It is important to recognise that the land-use system is never static, and that transport is only one of the factors that influence how it changes. The treatment of all the other factors - such as demographics, the workings of the development process, etc. - are among the things which distinguish the different approaches to land-use modelling reviewed below. The following points also need to be noted in order to clarify the scope of the following discussion: the land-use impacts of a transport change may extend far beyond the spatial scope of the transport proposal itself - they can extend at least as far as the area in which the transport change affects accessibility, and secondary effects may extend further; a great deal of locational change takes place through changing occupation of existing buildings, with changes in either the density or the nature of the occupation (for example, one type of business replacing another, or retired persons occupying housing previously occupied by families with children); the value of property is an important influence on its occupation; if improvements in transport increase the demand for space in a particular location, the resulting increases in rents may affect households or businesses who have no direct interest in the transport change itself; and it follows from the above points (a) that in many cases changes in composition are likely to be more significant than changes in totals - for example, changes in provision for commuter travel may have a significant impact on where the working population and its dependants live, but a much smaller impact on the distribution of the total population (as
Page 3

2.2.8

2.2.9

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

households without workers move into the areas that the workers are leaving); and (b) that significant land-use effects may occur within the market for existing property, with no new development and no formal change of use, and therefore beyond the control of the planning system. 2.2.10 It should also be noted that regeneration, socio-economic impacts and so on are all particular cases of what are here referred to as land-use effects. 2.3 2.3.1 The Scope of Land-Use Models The land-use components of land-use/transport models cover varying proportions of land-use as defined above. In most cases their representation of the physical use of land is only a small part of the overall model. In some cases, the physical use of land is not considered at all. A critical aspect in reviewing land-use models is not only to consider what categories of activities they represent, but what kinds of responses of those activities can be predicted - for example, whether households can choose not only to relocate, but also to change the type or size of dwelling they occupy. To begin this discussion, Figure 2.1 has been expanded so as to identify, in Figure 2.2, the main types of decisions made by the different categories of actors. An additional category of actors has been added, that of investors, in the top right. In the conceptual model, this includes all those investors who may invest in the area under consideration, many of whom are resident outside the area itself. For clarity, no attempt has been made to show within the diagram that many individuals are actors in more than one category - for example, self-employed persons are producers as well as residents, and many residents are also investors. Note also that one of the most important actors, government of all levels, is omitted, even though its intervention through regulation, taxation and investment is an actual or potential influence on almost all the decisions considered. Much of the development of operational models has been led by the need to consider the impact of such interventions, given the behaviour of all the other actors involved. It is important to keep in mind that in land-use modelling, the location of activities (and in many cases the location of the development they occupy) are outputs of the model, and that the models take a description of planning policy as input; this contrasts with the conventional planning data used in transport-only models, which corresponds with the outputs (e.g. population and jobs by zone) of land-use models. The lines on the diagram show the major interactions between different categories of actors, classified so as to identify the main markets in factors, goods and services. The directions of the arrows on the diagram are such that: the arrowheads show the delivery of a factor, good or service; and payment for that factor, good or service goes in the opposite direction to the arrow.

2.3.2

2.3.3

2.3.4

Page 4

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

FINANCIAL (CAPITAL) MARKETS

DEVELOPERS how much to develop where to develop PROPERTY MARKETS (new and secondhand buildings)

INVESTORS (internal and external)

PRODUCERS of good and services Locate Invest Recruit Purchase Produce Market (technological change)

LABOUR MARKET

IMPORTS

RESIDENTS Locate Train Work Purchase

PRODUCT MARKETS

Other activities (demographic effects)

EXPORTS GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

Freight TRANSPORT MARKETS TRANSPORT SUPPLIERS (network effects) Passenger

Figure 2.2 Actors and Markets in Land-Use/Transport Interaction Models: An Expansion

Page 5

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

2.3.5

Information also flows in both directions along each of the relationships indicated by arrows. This represents the often very partial information which people and firms obtain from the interactions with the market. Other information is obtained in other ways, which may themselves involve purchasing goods and services (e.g. market research reports, special surveys, newspapers with job and property advertisements, etc). The five markets are, from top to bottom of the diagram: the financial market(s); property markets; labour markets; product markets (including both goods and services); and transport markets.

2.3.6

2.3.7

Note that the first three of these are markets in the conventional factors of production (capital, land and labour), and that the markets in transport are a special case of the markets in services. No attempt has been made to separate categories of goods and services that are delivered via non-market mechanisms, such as, for example, public (state) education, and there are other whole sub-systems, such as taxation, welfare and benefits, which affect the behaviour of actors. The scope of the diagram as it stands is simply that which seems helpful to the discussion of land-use/transport interaction models. For this discussion, however, the possibilities are included that products may be: exported; consumed by the government; or used in fixed capital formation (the arrow from product markets to the invest action of producers); and also that they may be; supplied by imports to the economy under consideration as well as by local production.

2.3.8

The bold lines linking the transport market to the rest of the system emphasise that transport is generally a derived demand, derived from some other aspect of the economy. In the diagram, the derivation of demands is split into five segments: transport demands associated with product markets, that is, with the delivery of goods and services (through the movement of goods and persons, including consumers going to purchase goods or services) to intermediate or final consumers; transport demands associated with labour markets - mainly the movement of persons travelling to work; other travel demands associated with the activities of producers - these represent all business demands, mainly for passenger travel, not directly associated with trade in goods or services (e.g. travel to conferences, to internal company meetings, to meetings with regulatory bodies, etc.); residents travel demands other than travel to work or to obtain goods and services, i.e. all other personal travel; and

Page 6

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

transport demands associated with transport supply itself (e.g. the significant proportion of rail freight which is generated by maintenance and renewal of the railway itself).

2.3.9

The bullet points listed under some of the actor headings are general descriptions of key types of decisions that have to be taken by these categories of actors. The conduct of business by producers is generalised into: where to locate the business unit; investment in the unit - how much to invest, in what equipment; recruitment - what categories of staff to employ, how many, for what hours, at what wage rates, etc; purchasing - what intermediate goods and services to purchase, from whom; production - how much of what to make and when; and marketing - which markets to try to sell in, what to do to achieve this, etc.

Many decisions, particularly major ones, will of course deal simultaneously with most or all of these areas. 2.3.10 For residents, activities are classified into five headings: where to locate (and hence what land and floorspace to occupy); training - what (if anything) to do to obtain/maintain employable skills; work - whether or not to work, for whom, doing what, when, etc; purchasing - how to spend (or save - note link to investors) income derived from work or other sources; and other activities - everything else.

Note that the first three determine each persons involvement or otherwise in the labour market, and hence collectively the labour supply, whilst labour demand is determined by the location and recruitment decisions of producers. 2.3.11 The diagram, and the discussion of it, could of course be further elaborated, and it should be emphasised that it is a partial view of the world. As it is currently drawn, attention is drawn to just a few other influences on activities and decisions, indicated in brackets. These are: technological progress as an exogenous influence on producers (in the sense that even if firms are technological leaders and innovators in their particular fields, they are strongly influenced by the development of technology in other aspects of the economy); natural demographic processes (ageing) and social effects (marriage/cohabitation, separation) on residents and their grouping into households; and network effects (congestion) in the transport system (as distinct from the deliberate responses of transport operators and suppliers).

2.3.12 There are of course many models which represent particular processes or effects (such as local demographic change) without relating it to transport. To
Page 7

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

be of interest to the present studies, a model or modelling package must include: some form of spatial representation of producers, residents, and transport supply (not necessarily traced back to transport suppliers); links from the transport markets to the activities and markets which use transport, such that changes in transport have at least some impact on some decisions or responses of producers and residents; and scope for links from producers and residents, and/or from labour and product markets, to transport markets, as the main or only process by which transport demands are derived.

2.3.13 If it is decided that a particular study needs to model the impact of transport on land use (including economic and social impacts, etc.), there will be two options: to apply a simple model which predicts the land-use impact of transport change on the assumed planning data, but does not include the feedback from that land-use impact back to transport; or to apply a more complex model which includes both linkages, i.e. a full land-use/transport interaction model.

Note that, in the former simple model case, some other part of the modelling system will need to convert the assumed planning data into future transport demand; in the case of a full land-use/transport interaction model, this will be a central part of the overall model system. 2.3.14 The DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA discusses the scope of various models, including sketching out their coverage of actors and markets as defined in Figure 2.2; the significance of this is considered further in Section 3. 2.4 2.4.1 The Main Approaches Available The range of models currently available is considered below, along with the extent to which they address the scope for modelling defined above. At this point in the discussion, it is useful to introduce one major distinction which allows the available models to be classified in two broad approaches. The discussion around Figures 2.1 and 2.2 has already mentioned that the subject of land-use includes both the location of activities (and various aspects of their behaviour in those locations) and the economic interactions between activities in the various markets. These economic interactions - such as the flow of labour from homes to workplaces, or of goods from producers to consumers - are not generally identical with transport demands, but are clearly closely related to them. There is equally clearly a close relationship or identity, in many cases, between the measures of economic interaction and certain measures of activity location: for example, the row or home totals of a matrix of labour (measured in workers) flowing from homes to workplaces must equal the number of working residents living in each zone, whilst the column totals of that matrix must equal the number of filled jobs in each zone. Models can be classified according to how they link the location of activities and the spatial interactions between activities. This classification is important both to understanding the thinking behind different models and to practical questions of how they are implemented and used to appraise policies. One approach takes the interactions between activities as the key variables. These are predicted, and then the location of activities is calculated from the
Page 8

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.4.4

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

total levels of interaction. For example, the number of households living in a zone is found by predicting the number of workers commuting from that zone to each possible workplace, finding the total workers resident, and then factoring from workers to households. The patterns of interaction are also factored, from persons to trips, to give transport demand matrices. This approach may be called the interaction-location or IL approach, since the central feature is that the predicted interactions determine the location of activities. Such landuse/transport models can also be called integrated models, since the distribution of transport demand is wholly predicted within the land-use model. This means that the land-use and transport components of the overall model system cannot be separated. 2.4.5 The alternative approach first predicts the location of land-using activities, and then models the interactions between those located activities. This can obviously be called the location-interaction (LI) approach. This allows the number and location of the different kinds of activities to be determined by separate sub-models. These can consider any appropriate influences, but include measures of zonal accessibility, which reflect the scope for interactions from each zone. Hence, for example, a sub-model for residential location will include measures of accessibility to work and to other destinations. The interactions between activities are then controlled by the location of activities. These interactions may be modelled in economic terms, or may be predicted directly in terms of travel demand. This LI approach leaves the distribution of transport demand at least partly to the transport model. The overall model therefore consists of a complete transport model linked to a land-use model, rather than part of the transport model being embedded within the land-use model. The approach can therefore be described as linked, in contrast to the integrated approach described above. Various points about these alternative approaches should be noted. Firstly, IL or integrated models tend to be defined in terms of finding the equilibrium location and interaction of the different activities considered, given certain fixed variables such as a basic or exporting sector of employment and the supply of land or floorspace. This is necessary because of the way in which the number and location of activities is built up from their interactions with other activities. For example, this approach generally requires that households are generated by the demand for their labour, and that demand depends in part on households demands for services. This linkage has to be run to equilibrium, otherwise households and jobs will disappear from the system. In contrast, the LI or linked approach need not have any equilibrium between the location and number of different activities it can for example readily predict an increasing supply of labour in an area of decreasing demand, and the resulting unemployment.

2.4.6

2.4.7 2.4.8

2.4.9

2.4.10 Secondly, IL models by definition predict matrices of interactions which can be converted into matrices of the demand for transport. This may be useful in circumstances where observed transport demand data is unavailable or where a synthetic matrix is needed as input to a matrix-refinement process. 2.4.11 Thirdly, the fact that LI or linked models incorporate a distinct transport model which represents the complete range of transport-user responses is likely to make it easier both: to develop a land-use/transport model where a suitable transport model already exists, by adding an appropriate land-use element; and

Page 9

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

to carry out transport-only tests, and hence to produce transport-only calculations of benefit which are currently required as part of the appraisal process.

2.5 2.5.1

Land-Use/Transport Modelling and Strategy or Plan Appraisal It is probably helpful to split the issue of appraisal in relation to landuse/transport modelling into two subjects: first, the appraisal of transport strategies or plans, with land-use policy held constants, and secondly, the appraisal of alternative land-use policies, alone or in combination with alternative transport strategies or plans. Note that, for the reasons already explained, holding land-use policy constant does not mean that the land-use patterns will remain constant - they may be changed by the effects of the transport strategy or plan. Appraisal of Transport Strategies or Plans The first point to note is that it is currently not possible to conduct a cost/benefit analysis in which land-use changes feed through into travel demand changes. The reason is that, at present, the way in which land-use responses and transport responses are represented mathematically in land-use/transport interaction models are not sufficiently consistent to allow the calculations to be undertaken in a manner which accords with the theory on which transport cost/benefit is currently based. The economists conventional view of the land-use impacts of transport change has been that such impacts change the distribution of costs and benefits - for example, transport benefits initially enjoyed by travellers may be captured by real estate owners through increasing rents - but that they do not modify the total net value resulting. This view would imply that it is not necessary to assess the benefits associated with the land-use impacts at all, because they are simply transformations of the benefits which can be estimated on the basis of a transport-only analysis. There are at least three objections to this view. The first is that the distribution of benefits is often of concern, both spatially and socially. Most governments have policies which are intended (for example) to redistribute jobs to high unemployment areas, and transport investments which support such policies should be regarded as more beneficial than those which work against them. The second is that the view that land-use impacts transform and redistribute transport benefits has been shown to be valid only under conditions of perfect competition (Jara-Daz, 1986). More recent work (Martnez and Araya, 1998) has shown how unrealistic these conditions are, and has started to show how much the measures of benefit are modified by land-use effects. Whilst it appears highly significant, there is much more work to be done both on the issues it raises about how benefits should be evaluated, and if appropriate to implement suitable methods of benefit calculation within other land-use models. The third, which is perhaps a less formal view of the second, is that if the costs and benefits of a transport scheme change as one expands the scope of the transport analysis, it is implausible that the costs and benefits should not differ further if the analysis is extended into land-use effects. For example, the appraisal of a major motorway project will produce one result if it is based upon a fixed matrix of person-trips by road, but a different result if modal choice is taken into account and public transport operator response to changing demand is taken into account (e.g. if transfer from rail to road will lead to a decline in rail services). It is hard to see why further extension to include location and development effects would not lead to further modifications of benefit, especially when one notes that the location effects may be influenced by environmental
Page 10

2.6 2.6.1

2.6.2

2.6.3

2.6.4

2.6.5

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

externalities as well as by (variables derived from) the generalised cost of transport. 2.6.6 At present, there appear to be two approaches to appraisal in landuse/transport modelling practice. One effectively ignores the issues identified above, and carries out a relatively conventional transport-only calculation of benefits (based primarily on time and money savings) by testing the alternative transport strategies with land-use held constant. This could be extended by carrying out the test under both the reference case land-use pattern and the modified land-use pattern resulting from the land-use impacts of the strategy being tested; this would show whether benefits increased or decreased as land-use responded. Neither of these sets of calculations would yield the net benefit arising from the combined effect of the transport strategy and the resulting land use response nor would it tell us how the land-use effects would redistribute benefits. However, it is possible to examine the predicted land-use effects and to include separately in the appraisal (as envisaged in the new Appraisal Summary Table, see Transport Appraisal and the New Green Book (TAG Unit 2.7)) any impacts which are identified as being particularly desirable or undesirable. Desirable impacts would include regeneration (however defined, e.g. new development, new jobs, or reduced unemployment) in areas where that is a policy objective; undesirable impacts could include very much the same effects in areas where they are considered undesirable (e.g. increased demand for housing and associated pressure for development in National Parks or AONBs). At the other extreme, at least one modelling package attempts to carry out a comprehensive appraisal of benefits in the land-use system. This does respect the requirement to take land-use effects into account, as outlined above. This, of course, produces measures of benefit different from those in transport-only analysis; it should include the benefit (or disbenefit) that households or firms obtain from paying different levels of rent, from living at lower or higher densities, from being in different (e.g. more or less attractive) locations, and so on. This clearly goes well beyond a conventional transport cost/benefit analysis,; however desirable such an extended analysis is, it may come up against the institutional or administrative problems because it is unfamiliar and difficult to relate to the analyses from more conventional models.

2.6.7

2.6.8

2.6.9

2.6.10 Such analysis also raises more technical complications in terms of dealing with the lagged responses to transport in most land-use models. It is no coincidence that the most advanced application of the analysis of both land-use and transport benefits within a land-use model is based upon a system in which the land-use and transport systems are calculated so as to be in complete equilibrium with each other. The more sophisticated the dynamics of the landuse modelling, the more complicated it will be to establish sensible measures of benefit calculated within the land-use system. 2.6.11 There is also an issue of the assessment of environmental effects. In some land-use models, residents (and potentially firms) are influenced in their location decisions by the environmental impacts of transport. Negative transport impacts (e.g. increases in noise and in local air pollution) would decrease the willingness to pay to live in the locations affected, and would generate disbenefits (e.g. to the owners of property in those locations). This might start to duplicate environmental impacts which have conventionally been considered as separate parts of the overall appraisal process.

Page 11

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

2.7 2.7.1

Appraisal of Land-Use or Combined Land-Use/Transport Strategies A major attraction of the comprehensive appraisal of benefits (including the benefits derived from transport) in a land-use model is that such an approach should in principle be able to carry out a consistent appraisal of any combination of land-use and transport elements. This needs to be considered not only as an extension of transport strategy appraisal, but also in terms of its possible role in the land-use planning process. The idea of a consistent, combined appraisal of land-use and transport choices has a theoretical appeal, and should help to ensure that the wider objectives of land-use planning are not made subordinate to the narrower objectives of transport planning. However, it is beyond the scope of the current practice, and therefore this Guidance, to investigate the complexities of assessing costs and benefits in this area. It is, however, appropriate to note that existing land-use models can provide a wide range of indicators (not just transport indicators) about the impact of alternative land-use strategies, alone or in combination with transport strategies. These indicators are the kind of information expected by current approaches to assessment in both fields of planning, under headings of regeneration or socio-economic impacts as well as land-use itself.

2.7.2

3
3.1 3.1.1

Land-Use/Transport Interaction Models

Introduction Although land-use/transport interaction (LUTI) models have been in use for many years now, their use in transport strategy development in this country has been, until now, quite limited. As a consequence, there is much less familiarity among practitioners about these models than with the various forms of transport model. Other information on land-use/transport interaction models is in Transport Models (TAG Unit 3.1.2). The Main Types of Model Available The various kinds of LUTI models are classified in Figure 3.3. The first layer of the tree, starting from the top, separates out a group of models whose purpose is to optimise urban systems rather than to predict their behaviour. Such models are intended as tools which can find a design to optimise a particular function, and are therefore quite distinct from the majority of models which respond to a design input by the user. These optimising models may be informative for research and long-term planning, but in general they require a substantial model development effort in order to link them to the practical planning problems of individual cities or regions. Accordingly, they are not considered further here.

3.2 3.2.1

Page 12

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Land-use/transport models

Predictive models

Optimising models

Static models

Quasi-dynamic models

Entropy-based models

Spatialeconomics models

Activitybased models

Figure 3.3 Classification of Models 3.2.2 The second layer of the tree distinguishes between static and dynamic models. Static models represent a single point in time, whereas dynamic models run for a series of time periods, with transport changes generally taking one or more such periods to have an impact on land-use. Much of the early work in land-use modelling consisted of static models which attempted to predict the location of certain variables taking other simultaneous variables as given (see, in particular, Lowry, 1964, and the whole range of Lowry-inspired models considered in Batty, 1976). Such models obviously cannot represent in any realistic way the processes of urban change which, by their nature, take time to react to any changing situation. For this reason, static models had ceased to represent the state-of-the-art by the time the ISGLUTI project began around 1980 (see note on ISGLUTI, following the references at the end of the TAG Unit). Static models have, however, retained some relevance to cases where a dynamic land-use/transport model is unaffordable. Returning to Figure 3.3, it is rather more difficult to classify dynamic models, but it is possible to distinguish three approaches: models based originally upon the analogies with statistical mechanics (entropy) pioneered by Alan Wilson in the 1970s; models based primarily upon the integration into a spatial (multizonal) form of separately developed (and often non-spatial) economic models; and models based primarily upon representation of the different processes affecting the different types of activities considered.

3.2.3

Page 13

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

3.2.4

The range of available models within each of the above groups is now outlined, concentrating on those developed or used in Europe and likely to be available to the present studies. A similar review on a wider basis, including more nonEuropean and research-oriented examples, can be found in the DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA. Static Models Static models ceased to represent the state of the art in land-use modelling some 20 years ago, but are still sometimes used for two reasons: as a means of adding a land-use impact dimension to existing transport models, without embarking on the extra work needed to create a dynamic model; and/or because the static model represents an equilibrium state which is of interest in itself.

3.3 3.3.1

3.3.2

The category of static models can be divided into: models which estimate the pattern of land-use given one set of transport inputs; and models which estimate changes in land-use given two sets of transport inputs.

3.3.3

The Swedish IMREL model is representative of the single-input approach, whilst DSCMOD is representative of the two-input approach. DSCMOD has been developed by DSC since 1990 for the practical objective of adding a land-use dimension to what would otherwise be transport-only studies. IMREL (developed by Anderstig and Mattsson in Sweden, 1991 and 1992) has been used for both research and planning purposes. These models are described in more detail in Annex A of the DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA. Many other static models were developed in the 1960s and 1970s for specific studies. All of these models are linked to separate and usually pre-existing transport models. IMREL estimates equilibrium patterns of land-use corresponding with the accessibilities output by the transport model. DSCMOD, in contrast, assumes that the base case land-use forecast is in equilibrium with the base case transport strategy, and calculates changes in land-use from the accessibilities produced by alternative transport strategies. In DSCMOD, these accessibility changes may be the only influence on location choice, or may be combined in a more complex mechanism with floorspace constraints and market clearing using rent adjustments. These models are generally urban models. However, a regional employment version of DSCMOD (Simmonds, 1992; Simmonds and Jenkinson, 1993) has been developed which represents only employment and uses a measure of economic potential (accessibility factored by zonal employment) to relocate jobs. Entropy-Based Models The main UK example of an entropy-based model was the LILT (Leeds Integrated Land-Use Transport) package (Mackett, 1979 and 1983), which, when developed in the late 1970s, was the most substantial land-use/transport model application for a British city. It is understood, however, that this package is not available for new applications.

3.3.4

3.3.5

3.4 3.4.1

Page 14

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

3.5 3.5.1

Spatial-Economic Models: MEPLAN and TRANUS MEPLAN (Echenique et al, 1990) and TRANUS (de la Barra, 1989) are both commercial packages developed from a set of models devised at the Martin Centre at the University of Cambridge1. Both MEPLAN and TRANUS have been applied in policy and research studies both in the UK and abroad since the 1980s. Each package includes both a land use model and a multi-modal transport model, and is usually implemented as a quasi-dynamic model. There are many similarities in the broad approach adopted by the two packages MEPLAN and TRANUS are the key examples of interaction-location models (see 2.29). The interactions (economic trades) between activities are determined by input-output analysis, and these interactions are used to derive the demand for transport. Location choices, transport mode choices and assignment are determined in a multi-level choice structure based on random utility theory. The location behaviour of households, firms and property developers is based on competitive markets, with incomes and rents determined endogenously in each time period. A new package, MENTOR, is currently being tested. MENTOR is a land use package that can be interfaced to existing transport models. It builds on the theoretical structures of MEPLAN but operates on a more detailed segmentation of activities and is designed to be more straightforward to set up and calibrate. It retains the key characteristic that the distribution of transport demand is explicitly derived from the interactions modelled within the land-use model. The MEPLAN package, its application to LASER (a model of London and the South East, which focuses on residential location and the journey to work, shopping and schools) and EUNET (a model of the Transpennine corridor, which places emphasis on industrial location and the movement of freight), and the MENTOR package are all described further in Annex C of the DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA (DSC and ME&P, 1999). Information on the TRANUS package, including its application in Swindon (which gives particular emphasis to the consumption of energy and generation of polluting emissions) may be found on the internet at http:/www.modelistica.com. Activity Models Activity based models are defined by their focus on the different processes of change which affect activities and the spaces they occupy; they are locationinteraction models, typically characterised by more detailed segmentation of activities, and more elaborate treatment of both the decision to move and location choice. In contrast to other models, they do not relocate all activities in a time period, but separate the decision to move (which will affect only a proportion of total activities) and the search for a new location. These models also represent demographic change in more detail than any of the models so far considered. The best-developed model of this type is IRPUD (Wegener, 1982), a model of Dortmund (Germany) developed for research purposes over a long period. The one UK example is the DELTA package, which has been developed by DSC since 1994 (see Simmonds and Still, 1998; Simmonds, forthcoming). DELTA has been applied to Edinburgh and to Greater Manchester, and in an extended regional form (see below) to the Trans-Pennine region. A rather similar model,

3.5.2

3.5.3

3.5.4

3.6 3.6.1

3.6.2

For an outline of the history of these models, see Hunt and Simmonds (1993); for more detail, see the 1994 special issue of the journal Environment and Planning B containing urban and regional th modelling papers from the Martin Centre 25 Anniversary Conference (see note to the references).

Page 15

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

URBANSIM, is currently being applied in the USA to Eugene/Springfield (Oregon) and is to be applied to the Salt Lake City region. 3.6.3 These models are designed to be linked to transport models developed in separate packages2. Each consists of a number of sub-models representing different processes of change; in the DELTA case, these are physical development, improvement or decline in area quality, car ownership, demographic and economic change, location and the property market, and employment status. One of the characteristics of the focus on processes of change is that the design and calibration of the model draw much more upon other aspects of urban research (in economics, geography, sociology, etc) rather than drawing purely upon other modelling work. Another characteristic is that different processes are likely to predominate at different spatial scales. A regional version of DELTA has recently been developed and has been applied to the whole of the Trans-Pennine Corridor. This version retains the original processes of urban change within each of the conurbations and other areas, but additional processes of migration and of regional economic change are added to represent the demographic and economic interactions between them. This contrasts with the Martin Centre of representing different scales, from city to continent, by modelling different variables within the same spatialeconomic framework. More details of DELTA can be found in Annex E of the DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA. Modelling Effects, Decisions and Markets Much of the literature on land-use/transport modelling is concerned with description and comparison of how the models work - what may be called the model mechanisms and the theories or assumptions underlying them. Such presentations do not necessarily make it clear to the non-specialist what connections are made by the models, and how these are made. Chapter 4 of the DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA tries to remedy this, by summarising: 3.7.2 what interactions between supply and demand are represented in the transport model; what information is passed from the transport model to the land-use model; what impacts changes in transport have within the land-use model (and whether these are immediate or lagged); and what information is passed back from the land-use model to the transport model.

3.6.4

3.6.5

3.7 3.7.1

These points represent a useful checklist for gaining an appreciation of any particular model. Another important aspect of understanding is to know which effects within the land-use model (out of the range discussed around Figure 2.2) are explicitly represented as decisions of particular kinds of economic actors (households, firms, etc), or as other appropriate and explicit processes,

The nature of this linkage has caused some confusion. Many of the land-use/transport models developed by linking separate land-use and transport modelling packages require manual intervention to transfer data from one model to another. In some cases, the linked packages are on different computers with different operating systems. For practical, rather than research, studies, it is desirable that a complete forecast of the combined system can be initiated by a single command and left to run without further intervention. This level of automation is, of course, inherent in the integrated land-use/transport modelling packages.

Page 16

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

and which are represented only implicitly by fixed relationships or as being determined by other decisions. (As an example of an effect determined by other decisions, service employment in the Martin Centre models is not modelled as a decision by the retail sector, but is calculated wholly as a consequence of consumers decisions on where to shop.) Differences in representation cannot generally be described as right or wrong, but particular approaches may well be appropriate or inappropriate to particular studies: the relationship between economic change and population change, and between both of those and the development process, are points which should be considered carefully. 3.7.3 One way of looking at these points is to consider the ways in which different models represent the markets, in labour, in goods and services, and in property. Summaries of the representation of decisions and of the resulting treatment of non-transport markets in a number of current models can again be found in Chapter 4 of the DSC/ME&P Report to SACTRA. It must, however, be noted at this point that the modelling software in use consists of packages which generally offer considerable scope for different applications within one broad approach. The detailed representation of response to transport in non-transport markets could be significantly different in future application of these packages. There is scope for fine-tuning to the requirements of particular studies, though the constraints on this should also be noted: above all, that the modelling of choices in the land-use system, just like the modelling of choices in transport, is only valid if the set of possible choices is correctly specified. This makes it difficult, and at present largely impossible, to build a meaningful land-use/transport model for a small area around a scheme, or for a one-dimensional corridor between two places. This difficulty also applies to modelling the distribution of travel, and has already been identified in the Fearon Report. Data Requirements The land-use/transport models considered in this section all include or require an operational transport model. It is therefore appropriate to consider under data requirements only those requirements which are additional to those for transport modelling, i.e. the extra data needed for land-use modelling. Since some of the land-use models include functions which elsewhere are left to the transport model, this division is not exact; these points are noted where applicable in what follows. Data requirements can to some extent be split into two categories: data required to implement the model, i.e. the variables which have to be introduced in order to make the model represent the chosen city or region, and which are either direct inputs to the working model or are automatically reproduced by the working model (see paragraphs 3.7.4 to 3.7.6); and additional data or information required to calibrate the model to reproduce the behaviour of the chosen system or the processes at work within it (see paragraphs 3.7.7 to 3.7.10).

3.7.4

3.8 3.8.1

3.8.2

3.8.3

Two other types of input also need to be noted: the range of inputs which can be used to specify future scenarios (see paragraphs 3.7.11 to 3.7.12), and

Page 17

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

the range of policies that can be tested (see paragraphs 3.7.13 to 3.7.14).

The following sections deal with these in turn. It should be noted at the outset that only a broad and general description of requirements and possibilities can be given; the details will depend on the design of each particular model application, and in nearly all cases the model implementation process can be adapted to the availability or otherwise of particular types of information. 3.8.4 Data requirements for model implementation. In general, the requirements for the implementation category of data are quite firm - there must be one number for each variable in each zone - but at least in the early stages of model implementation there is a lot of scope for choice in the definition of variables (e.g. how many household types, how many employment categories). In contrast, the requirements for calibration are much less precise - although some of the packages have automated calibration routines which require particular inputs, these are not the only way of arriving at the eventual coefficient values. The data requirements are summarised in Table 3.1.

Page 18

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Table 3.1: Implementation Data for Land-Use/Transport Interaction Models

Variable

Static Models IMREL etc DSCMOD Few categories input as base situation Not applicable

Dynamic Models Martin Centre Few categories to reproduce DELTA Few or many categories inputs for base year and earlier Required as input (may be reflected in household categorisation) Few or many categories inputs for base year and earlier

Households/ population

Few categories to reproduce Not applicable

Employment (status of residents)

Not applicable

Employment (by workplace)

Few categories to reproduce

Few categories input as base situation

Few categories split into exogenous component, input, and endogenous, to reproduce Required for base situation

Floorspace by type

Required for base and alternative situations Required for base situation

Optional

Required for base situation

Rents

Optional for base situation

To reproduce by calibration in base situation To reproduce by calibration in base situation To reproduce by calibration in base situation To reproduce by calibration in base situation

Required input for base situation and earlier Required input for base situation and earlier Required input for large study areas; also in transport model (possibly implicit in transport model; explicit in regional versions) Input

Household incomes

not used

Optional for base situation

Matrices of labour to work Matrices of goods and/or services to consumers Development under construction in base year

(in transport model)

(in transport model)

(possibly implicit in transport model) see floorspace, above

(possibly implicit in transport model) see floorspace, above

Not required

Page 19

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

3.8.5

Table 3.1 tends to confirm that the more complex models have rather similar data requirements except that: at the urban level the DELTA approach does not consider the pattern of trade in goods and services, only in labour; the DELTA approach generally requires rather more information about previous years (in line with its lesser assumptions of equilibrium); and a number of variables have to be reproduced by calibration in the Martin Centre models but are simply input to DELTA.

3.8.6

In relation to this last point, it should be noted that: it may mean that the calibration is optimised to reproduce all the cells of the matrix as well as possible, or simply that some characteristic of the matrix (such as the average travel to work distance) is reproduced, and that in the latter case the matrix itself may not be used at all (if for example average travel to work distance is obtained from a household survey); and data which is input may itself be synthesised, and especially in the case of matrices will always involve some element of synthesis. (In general there is decreasing difference between methods which synthesise their base situation but are adjusted (e.g. by residual disutility methods) so as to reproduce all the confidently-known features of the observed base data, and those which are intended to take the observed base data as input but require a pre-model synthesis of those cells which are not known with confidence.)

3.8.7

Approaches to calibration. It is worth emphasising that the design of DELTA does not envisage that all of these behavioural coefficients should be estimated on local data; it is seen as a positive advantage that they should be based on wider research, supplemented by local experience. The Martin Centre approach, in contrast, places much more emphasis on reproducing many aspects of the initial situation; it therefore lends itself to a rather more statistical form of calibration based on that reproduction in terms of simultaneous relationships, but it involves relatively few coefficients that relate to recognisable processes of change over time. Approaches to calibration: Martin Centre Models. Table 3.2 (based on Hunt, 1994, and Hunt and McMillan, 1995) attempts to identify the coefficients which have to be set up in the cross-sectional elements of a typical Martin Centre-type model. All these are used in the reproduced by calibration elements of the database.

3.8.8

Page 20

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Table 3.2: Coefficients of Typical Martin Centre Models

Coefficient or relationship units of labour (in households, by seg) required per job in each sector units of services (in jobs by sector) required per household of each seg relationships between sectors: input/output matrix (in employment units) household utility levels household expenditure patterns relationship of space-per-employee to rent-per-unit-space, by sector dispersion parameter for travel to work by seg dispersion parameter for distribution of goods and services by sector

Comments can be initially derived from Census data can be initially derived from Family Expenditure data, adjusted to Study Area totals (not usually included in urban applications) (adjusted to reproduce income levels, given expenditure patterns) can be derived from Family Expenditure data

(equivalent to distribution coefficient on travel to work in a transport model) (equivalent to distribution coefficient on various other purposes in a transport model)

3.8.9

In addition, the Martin Centre models involve a relatively limited set of incremental sub-models which estimate changes (typically subtractions and additions separately) over time in: exogenous employment by sector: exogenous households3 by socio-economic group; and floorspace by category.

The increments (positive and negative) in these are exogenous to the model. 3.8.10 Approaches to calibration: DELTA. Table 3.3 lists the more purely behavioural coefficients of DELTA (as implemented for the Greater Manchester Strategy Planning Model (GMSPM) - see the Fearon report for further details). All of these are calibrated primarily on the basis of previous national or international research, supplemented where necessary with professional judgement and where appropriate with adjustment to the scale of the particular model. Note that the car ownership model in GMSPM is an adaptation of the current national model (MVA, 1996).

Exogenous households are those which do not supply labour to employment sectors; all other households, ie endogenous households, are generated in proportion to the demand for labour. Note that exogenous households have to be calculated and located before endogenous households (in contrast with DELTA, where non-working persons are the residual working-age adults after jobs have been filled with workers).

Page 21

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Table 3.3: Coefficients of DELTA (urban application) Actor Household s (individual) Response type Car ownership Coefficient Saturation level of car ownership Income effect Licence-holding effect Income/accessibility interaction term Expenditure preferences (housing vs other goods and services) Response to change in utility of consumption Notes/comments

Optional Used in calculating utility of consumption obtained from expenditure Response is to change since likely year of last location/relocation; this is specified by a lag for each household type.

Location

Household s (collective)

Area quality response

Response to change in accessibility Response to change in area quality Response to change in environmental quality (in practice, local environmental impact of transport) Probability of relocating in each year Impact on quality of vacant housing Impact on quality of changes in average household income Probability of relocating in each year Response to change in cost of location

Firms

Location/ relocation

Response is to change since likely year of last location/relocation; this is specified by a lag for each employment sector.

Developers

Total development (before planning constraints) Response to overall planning constraints Location of development

Response to change in accessibility Elasticity with respect to average profitability of each floorspace type Decreasing supply of permissions may lead to slowdown in development Response to profitability of alternative locations

Subject to planning constraints

3.8.11 Requirements for Forecasting: Specification of Scenarios. By specification of scenarios we mean the specification of those processes of change which need
Page 22

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

to be considered within the model but which are independent, or largely independent, of the strategies to be tested. In practice, this usually means the modelled area economic and demographic changes for each future period to be modelled. Note that the allocation of economic activity and population to zones is done within the land-use model, and is generally responsive both to land-use policy and to changes in transport provision. 3.8.12 The exact form in which scenarios are specified can vary greatly between models. This is illustrated for some current models in the following paragraphs. Note that in both types of models considered, the specification of the economic and demographic scenario in the land-use model should automatically generate the corresponding transport demand scenario - for example, in GMSPM, changing the economic scenario by specifying a more positive rate of growth in jobs will typically lead to: more people in work, and hence more travel to work (and possibly slightly less other home-based travel on weekdays); a proportion of households with higher incomes and hence higher carownership, with resulting changes in the mode split of all their journeys; changes in the location of households, influenced both by their higher incomes and by their increased car ownership; and changes in the location of employment, due to the increased competition for commercial space.

3.8.13 The following notes on the specification of scenarios consider only the land-use elements. In some cases, it may be necessary to make corresponding changes in transport parameters (notably value of time) in order to maintain the consistency of the model. (If the disaggregation of the transport model exactly matched that of the land-use model, in terms of the cross-classification of person types, household socio-economic and car ownership status, etc, then this consistency would automatically be maintained without the need for changes in parameters.) 3.8.14 The need to specify economic and demographic scenarios in particular forms can appear as an extra burden on the forecasting process. This is not necessarily the case; if the simplest approach is taken, it should be possible to reproduce the economic and demographic scenarios already established in TEMPRO without too much effort. A more positive view, however, is that the ability to run tests consistently under different scenarios makes it possible to examine whether recommended strategies are appropriate under a range of different conditions. Testing strategies for their robustness in this way recognises and deals as well as possible with the familiar problem that errors in economic forecasts, are a major source of error in transport forecasts. 3.8.15 The scenario-defining elements in DELTA are set out in Table 3.4.

Page 23

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Table 3.4: Scenario-Defining Elements in DELTA Model Area Demographic change Input Household transition rates (formation, transformation and dissolution) Notes/sources An initial set of coefficients is developed from Census, survey and official registration sources, and is then adjusted to reproduce a demographic scenario (households and population) developed using specialised regional models (Migration between modelled area is endogenous to regional version.)

Economic change

Migration proportion of households by type leaving study area in each period, ratio of in-migrants to outmigrants Persons per household (by type) Growth/decline in employment by sector

Socio-economic composition of jobs in each sector

Household incomes

Car ownership

Development

Increase in driving licence holding Costs of car ownership Cost of development by floorspace type and greenfield/brownfield

(Sectoral employment determined via input-output model from partly exogenous final demand in regional version.) (note that this relationship features as input to most urban models, but little work seems to have been done on forecasting it) Note that this is average income for a household of a particular composition, including employment status; changes in income due to changing employment status or due to natural change (e.g. going from working age to retired) come about through transfers between household categories Influence on car ownership

3.8.16 The scenario-defining elements in MEPLAN are as follows (those for TRANUS are broadly similar): totals of exogenous employment, exogenous households, construction and demolition to be allocated by incremental models; changes to input-output or social-accounting relationships; changes in household utility levels (which will give rise to changes in incomes); changes in employment or economic activity may be brought about either by changing the exogenous demands (which are allocated by the incremental models) or by changing the input-output relationships; and

Page 24

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

changes in population may be implemented either by allocating more exogenous households to the incremental models, or by changing the relationship of household to jobs in the social-accounting matrix (which will cause more households to be generated).

3.9 3.9.1

Scope for Testing Land-Use Policies Static models are largely limited to testing the effect of transport policies given exogenously defined allocations of floorspace or housing to each zone; they do not permit the testing of land-use policies (i.e. predicting how development and land-using activities will respond to those allocations) as such. The abilities of land-use models to test land-use policies depends very much upon the details of the particular application. It is also difficult to define the policy-testing scope even of a specific model; as with the more elaborate transport models, there is generally a set of policies which can be directly modelled by inserting or changing numbers in pre-defined fields, and a larger set of policies which can be less directly modelled, by some form of intervention in the operation of the model or with the addition of an additional set of calculations. Table 3.5 attempts to indicate a typical set of capabilities for an urban model and a regional model, under the conventional headings of regulation, pricing and investment.

3.9.2

Table 3.5: Typical Policy-Testing Capabilities of Land-Use Models Policy intervention type Regulation Examples in urban modelling Examples in regional modelling

Pricing Investment

Allocation of land to development (by zone, by development type, by year) Permitted density of development Maximum density of use of space Taxes/subsidies to development Taxes/subsidies on occupation of property Exogenous development (i.e. exogenously defined additions to building stock) Redevelopment (i.e. exogenously defined reduction in the building stock, followed by development) Exogenously added (or subtracted) activities, e.g. major new employers or closures Investment in utilities may be a prerequisite to new development

Taxes/subsidies on production Exogenously added (or subtracted) activities, e.g. major new employers or closures

Notes: 1 2 the table lists only land-use strategy components; the scope for testing transport strategies is determined by the associated transport model the model operation is generally the same whatever strategies are being tested, i.e. the introduction of policy variations changes the quantitative results of the model but does not require different modules or processes to be applied. Combined urban/regional models are possible. The Appropriateness of Alternative Approaches to Land-Use Modelling

3 3.10

3.10.1 The following paragraphs do not attempt to deal with all the issues that have to be considered in deciding whether or not to model land-use explicitly in the course of a transport study. They simply consider those issues which should affect the choice of approach if land-use modelling is to be pursued.

Page 25

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

3.10.2 The choice of modelling approach can be considered as a sequence of choices, along the lines of Figure 3.3: static model or dynamic? if dynamic, which kind of approach is most appropriate?

3.10.3 A static model may be appropriate if: the planning policy for the study area is clearly defined and there is no need to test the effect of alternative planning policies within the study; or it will suffice to obtain general indications of the most direct land-use effects of the transport strategies to be considered.

3.10.4 If, on the other hand different planning policies are to be considered (particularly if they are being proposed as part-solutions to transport problems), there are hopes or concerns that transport changes will have more profound impacts on the local economy, or there is concern to examine the profile of change over time (e.g. for how long a particular course of action will relieve traffic problems),

then a dynamic model would (resources allowing) be more appropriate. 3.10.5 The choice between different approaches to dynamic modelling is less dependent on what is actually to be done with the model. The two main approaches, the interaction-location models represented by MEPLAN and TRANUS, and the location-interaction models represented by DELTA + transport model, generally do similar things in very different ways. Some of the points of contrast are summarised in Table 3.6. In each row, it is reasonable to say (at present) that the commissioning organisations should exercise their professional judgement as to which approach is most appropriate in each particular case - there are no clear grounds for defining that either one is right or wrong in specific situations.

Page 26

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Table 3.6: Area

Factors Influencing Whether to Use either an Interaction-Location or a Location-Interaction Model Interaction-location (MEPLAN, MENTOR, TRANUS) Integration of different areas of economic theory Location-interaction (DELTA) More eclectic: takes ideas from demographics, urban economics, etc. Separate demographic processes and economic processes or trends Parameters typically based on previous research Would require a major project for full validation, but validation/adjustment of selected sub-models should be relatively straightforward Most demands for transport generated and distributed within transport model, given land-use changes Comprehensive appraisal not yet possible; conventional appraisal of transport benefits possible using associated transport model

Theoretical basis

Main drivers of change

Calibration

Input output model generates households from demand for labour and service employment from demands for services Can be calibrated to base-year data Requires a major project; implications for model not necessarily clear

Validation over time

Relationship to transport model

Generation and distribution of transport determined primarily by land-use model

Scope for appraisal

May be capable of a comprehensive calculation of benefits within the land-use model. Conventional appraisal of transport benefits may be restricted by limited nature of transport model.

Further Information
The following documents provide information that follows on directly from the key topics covered in this TAG Unit. For information on: The Appraisal Summary Table See: Transport Appraisal and the New Green Book TAG Unit number: TAG Unit 2.7

References
Anderstig C and Mattsson L-G (1991): An integrated model of residential and employment location in a metropolitan region, Papers in Regional Science; Journal of the RSAI, Vol.70, No.2. Anderstig C and Mattsson L-G (1992): Policy Applications of an Integrated Land Use Transport Model in the Stockholm Region, Paper presented at the 6th World Conference on Transport Research, Lyons. Batty, M (1976): Urban modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. De la Barra T (1989): Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Page 27

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

De la Barra T (1994): From theory to practise: the experience in Venezuela. Environment and Planning, Vol.21, pp 611-617 Echenique, M H, A D J Flowerdew, J D Hunt, T R Mayo, I J Skidmore and D C Simmonds (1990): The MEPLAN models of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund. Transport Reviews, vol. 10, pp 309-322. Hunt J D (1994): Calibrating the Naples land-use and transport model. Environment and Planning B, vol. 21, no. 5 pp 555-568. Hunt, J D and D C Simmonds (1993): Theory and application of an integrated land-use and transport modelling framework. Environment and Planning B, vol 20, pp 221-244. Hunt, J D and J D P McMillan (1995): A MEPLAN landuse/transport/environment model of Edmonton. Paper presented to the World Conference on Transport Research, Sydney, July 1995. Jara-Daz, S R (1986): On the relation between users benefits and the economic effects of transportation activities. Journal of Regional Science, vol 26, pp 379-391. Lowry I S (1964): A Model of Metropolis. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica. Mackett, R L (1979): A model of the relationships between transport and land use, Working Paper 122, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. Mackett, R L (1983): The Leeds Integrated Land-use Transport model (LILT). Supplementary Report 805, TRRL, Crowthorne. Martnez F J and Araya C (1998): Land use impacts of transport projects: user benefits, rents and externalities. Paper presented to the World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp, July 1998. Martnez, F and C Araya (1998): Land use impacts of transport projects: user benefits, rents and externalities. Paper presented to the World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp. ME&P (1995): MEPLAN Scenario tests for London, Final Report. Available from Marcial Echenique & Partners Ltd., Cambridge. Mohring, H (1976): Transportation economics. Ballinger, Cambridge (Ma). Paulley, N J and F V Webster (1991): Overview of an international study to compare models and evaluate land-use and transport policies. Transport Reviews, vol 11, pp 197-222. Rohr, C and I N Williams (1994): Modelling the regional economic impacts of the Channel Tunnel. Environment and Planning B, vol 21, pp 555-567. Sasaki, K and M Kaiyama (1990): The effects of urban transportation costs on urban spatial structure with endogenous wage income. Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol 20, pp 223-243. Simmonds D C and Jenkinson N (1993): Regional Economic Impacts of the Channel Tunnel, Proceedings of the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting 1993. PTRC, London. Simmonds, D C (1992): Regional impacts of the Channel Tunnel and Associated Links, David Simmonds Consultancy, Cambridge. Simmonds, D C (1994): The Martin Centre Model: strengths and weaknesses. Environment and Planning B, vol 21, pp 619-628.
Page 28

TAG Unit 3.1.3 Land-Use / Transport Interaction Models

Simmonds, D C: The design of the DELTA land-use modelling package. Environment & Planning B, volume 26. Simmonds, D C and B G Still (1998): DELTA/START: adding land use analysis to integrated transport models. World Conference on Transport Research 1998. Webster, F V, P H Bly and N J Paulley (1988): Urban land-use and transport interaction: policies and models. Phase I report of the International Study Group on Land-Use Transport Interaction (ISGLUTI). Avebury, Aldershot. [See note on ISGLUTI, below.] Wegener, M (1982): Modelling urban decline: a multi-level economicdemographic model for the Dortmund region. International Regional Science Review, vol 7, pp 217-241. Wheaton, W (1977): Residential decentralization, land rents and the benefits of urban transportation investment. American Economic Review, vol 67, pp 138143. Williams I N (1994): A model of London and the South East. Environment and Planning B, vol. 21, pp 535-553. Williams, H C W L (1976): Travel demand models, duality relations and user benefit analysis. Journal of Regional Science, vol 16, pp 147-166. Notes to the references. The book edited by Webster et al (1988) is commonly referred to as the ISGLUTI Report, but covers only the first phase of ISGLUTIs activities. The second phase, which involved applying several models to each city, was reported in a series of papers in Transport Reviews, concluding with that by Paulley and Webster (1991). A number of papers on urban and regional modelling, originally delivered at the Martin Centre 25th Anniversary Conference, 1992, were published in Volume 25 number 5 of Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. These included papers on the design and calibration of MEPLAN-based urban models (Williams, 1994 and Hunt, 1994, respectively) and regional models (Rohr and Williams, 1994) and experience with the TRANUS model in Venezuela (de la Barra, 1994), as well as a paper on the strengths and weaknesses of the Martin Centre modelling approach by Simmonds (1994). The issues covered in the last of these formed part of the background to the subsequent development of the DELTA package.

Document Provenance
This Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit is based Appendix B of Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies Volume 2 (DETR, 2000) Technical queries and comments on this TAG Unit should be referred to: Integrated Transport Economic Appraisal (ITEA) Division Department for Transport Zone 3/08 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

[email protected]
Tel 020 7944 6176 Fax 020 7944 2198

Page 29