Viewpoint: Toward a new generation of land use transport interaction models
Bert van Wee
Delft University of Technology
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.611
Keywords: LUTI, models, discussion, land use, transport
Abstract
Land use transport interaction (LUTI) models are often developed to model the interaction between the land use and trans- port systems for relatively large-scale spatial developments, like new residential or office areas, new main roads, or railway lines. In this paper I argue that we need a next generation of LUTI models that model trends such as peak car; decline in population, shops, services, etc.; impact of information and communications technology (ICT) on activity patterns and travel; and cycling policies. The current genera- tion of LUTI models cannot adequately answer the policy questions raised by these trends. However, a major problem is that the future of these trends is uncertain, and we lack empirical research into the dynamics between these trends and their wider impact on land use and transport systems. Nevertheless, LUTI models can, by utilizing what-if calculations, help explore future trends and their implications. Other challenges for LUTI models include the calculation of a wider set of accessibility indicators, the inclusion of interactions between key ac- tors in the transport and land-use system—serious gaming may prove a useful way to explore these interactions—and the development of dynamic visualizations.Author Biography
Bert van Wee, Delft University of Technology
Transport and Logistics group Professor of Transport PolicyReferences
Cao, X., P.L. Mokhtarian and S.L. Handy, 2009. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews 29(3): 359-395.
Dargay, J.M., 2001. The effect of income on car ownership: evidence of asymmetry. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35(9): 807-821.
Delbosc, A. and G. Currie, 2013. Causes of Youth Licensing Decline: A Synthesis of Evidence. Transport Reviews 3(3): 271-290.
De Jong, G., A. Daly, M. Pieters and T. van der Hoorn, 2007. The logsum as an evaluation measure: Review of the literature and new results. Transportation Research Part A 41(9): 874-889.
Devereux, L., j. Ying and Ian Elston, 2004. Modelling Land Use – Transport dynamics: The London to Ipswich Corridor in the United Kingdom. EJTIR 4(3): 293-313.
Geurs, K.T. and B. van Wee, 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Transport Geography, 12 (2): 127-140.
Geurs, K.T. and B. van Wee, 2006. Ex-post evaluation of thirty years of compact urban development in the Netherlands. Urban Studies 43(6): 139-160.
Goodwin, P. and K. van Dender, 2013. 'Peak Car' - Themes and Issues. Transport Reviews 33(3): 243-254.
Hunt, J.D., D.S. Kriger, E.J. Miller, 2005. Current operational urban land-use-transport modelling frameworks: A review. Transport Reviews 25 (3): 329-376.
Kwan, M.-P., 1999. Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures Kwan, M.-P. Professional Geographer 51(2): 210-227.
Lucas, K. and B. van Wee, 2013. Developing a method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Paper presented at the NECTAR conference, Azores, Portugal, 16-18 June.
Meijer, S.A., Mayer, I.S. , van Luipen, J. and N. Weitenberg, 2012. Gaming Rail Cargo Management: Exploring and Validating Alternative Modes of Organization. Simulation and Gaming 43(1): 85-101.
Nagurney, A., 2003. Supernetworks: paradoxes, challenges and new opportunities. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on the Economic and Social Implications of Information Technology, Washington, D.C, 229-254.
Neutens, T. , T. Schwanen,F. Witlox and P. Maeyer, 2008. My space or your space? Towards a measure of joint accessibility. Environment and Urban Systems 32(5): 331-342.
Ortúzar, J. de D. and L.G. Willumsen, 2011. Modelling transport. 4th edition. Wiley.
Pucher, J. and R. Buehler (eds), 2012. City cycling. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London: the MIT press.
Rotem-Mindali, O. and J.W.T. Weltevreden, 2013. Transport effects of e-commerce: What can be learned after years of research? Transportation 40(5): 867-885.
Schoemakers, A. and T. van der Hoorn, 2004, LUTI modelling in the Netherlands: Experiences with TIGRIS and a framework for a new LUTI model. EJTIR 4(3): 315-332.
Thomopoulos, N., S. Grant-Muller and M.R. Tight, 2009. Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology. Evaluation and Program Planning 32(4): 351-359.
Stanley, J. and K. Lucas, 2009. Special Issue of the Journal of Transport Policy focusing on international perspectives on transport and social exclusion. Transport Policy 16(3): 89
Van der Waard, J., P. Jorritsma and B. Immers, 2013, New Drivers in Mobility; What Moves the Dutch in 2012?Transport Reviews 33(3): 343-359.
Van Wee, B., 2009. Self-Selection: A Key to a Better Understanding of Location Choices, Travel Behaviour and Transport Externalities? Transport Reviews 29(3): 279-292.
Van Wee., B., C. Chorus and K. Geurs, in press. Information, communication, travel behaviour and accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use
Waddell, P. ,G.F. Ulfarsson, J.P. Franklin and J. Lobb, 2007. Incorporating land use in metropolitan transportation planning.Transportation Research Part A 41(5): 382-410.
Wegener, M. and F. Fürst. 1999. Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Deliverable D2a of the project TRANSLAND. Berichte aus den Insititut für Raumplanung, 46, Dortmund: Universität Dortmund, Insititut für Raumplanung.
