In the past decade there have been a number of efforts aimed at the development of more-complete representations of urban transportation and land-use interactions. In this paper, it is suggested that there is a great deal to be learned from experimentation with existing as well as emerging techniques. Systems of models are discussed in general terms with particular reference to the implications of selecting one system over another. A report is given of some empirical work with an integrated transportation and land-use model structure and the consequences of the model-system structure for the empirical work are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BattyMMarchL, 1978, “Dynamic urban models based on information-minimizing” in Towards the Dynamic Analysis of Spatial Systems Eds MartinR LThriftN JBennettR J (Pion, London) pp 127–155
2.
BerechmanJGordonP, 1983, “Linked models and land-use transport interactions: A review” presented at International Symposium on New Directions in Urban Modelling, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario; copy obtainable from the authors at Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv
3.
BovyP H LJansenG R M, 1983, “Network aggregation effects upon equilibrium assignment outcomes: An empirical investigation”Transportation Science17240–262
4.
ChanY, 1976, “A method to simplify network representation in transportation planning”Transportation Research10179–191
5.
EashRChonK SLeeY JBoyceD E, 1983, “Equilibrium traffic assignment on an aggregated highway network for sketch planning” mimeo, Transportation Planning Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
6.
KaskanMKeithR, 1983, “SF30 project: Base forecast and policy analysis” unpublished Capstone Project report, Urban Simulation Laboratory, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
7.
MartinR LThriftN JBennettR J, (Eds), 1978Towards the Dynamic Analysis of Spatial Systems (Pion, London)
8.
OpenshawS, 1977, “Optimal zoning systems for spatial interaction models”Environment and Planning A9169–184
9.
PutmanS H, 1979Urban Residential Location Models (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague)
10.
PutmanS H, 1981, “Theory and practice and urban modelling: The art of application” paper presented at Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Regional Science Association, British Section, University of Durham; copy obtainable from the author
11.
PutmanS H, 1983a, “Future directions for urban systems models: Some pointers from empirical investigations” paper presented at International Symposium of New Directions in Urban Modelling, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario; copy obtainable from the author
12.
PutmanS H, 1983bIntegrated Urban Models: Policy Analysis of Transportation and Land Use (Pion, London)
13.
PutmanS HMillerH WJr, 1984, “Dynamic systems of spatial interaction models 1: Simple system structures”Urban Simulation Laboratory, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
14.
SugimotoM, 1983, “The integrated transportation and land use models: Dortmund, the Federal Republic of Germany” unpublished Capstone Project report, Urban Simulation Laboratory, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
15.
WegenerMGuodFVannahumeM, 1983, “The time scales of urban change” presented at International Symposium, on New Directions in Urban Modelling, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario; copy obtainable from Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, FRG
16.
WilsonA G, 1981Catastrophe Theory and Bifurcation (Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent)
17.
WilsonA GCoelhoJ DMacgillS MWilliamsH C W L, 1981Optimization in Location and Transport Analysis (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
