Models that represent the polycentric and dispersed nature of modern cities should be able to account for the rise and fall of subcenters. Based on a review of the programming models applied to urban analysis, five properties are suggested that an adequate model should include. It should: 1 confront the simultaneity between markets for land and transportation services; 2 accommodate the reality of cities as places where externalities and common properties abound; 3 emulate the intertemporal albeit bounded nature of planning and decisionmaking; 4 fully exploit principles of economic theory; and, 5 offer computability. We develop a discrete programming model with these five properties, comparing its capabilities with those of previous approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlonsoW, 1964Location and Land Use (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
2.
AnasA, 1983, “The effects of transportation on the tax base and development of cities”, DOT/OST/P-30/85/005, final report to the US Department of Transportation (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA)
3.
BeckmannMMcGuireC BWinstenC B, 1956Studies in the Economics of Transportation (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
4.
BerechmanJ, 1981, “Analytical problems in linking an activity model with a transportation network model”Environment and Planning A13449–462
5.
BoyceD E, 1978, “Equilibrium solutions to combined urban residential location, modal choice, and trip assignment models”, in Competition among Small Regions Eds BuhrWFriedrickP (Nomos, Baden-Baden) pp 246–264
6.
BoyceD ESouthworthF, 1979, “Quasi-dynamic urban-location models with endogenously determined travel costs”Environment and Planning A11575–584
7.
BoyceD ELeBlancL JChonK S, 1988, “Network equilibrium models of urban location and travel choices: A retrospective survey”Journal of Regional Science28159–184
8.
EashR WJansonB NBoyceD E, 1979, “Equilibrium trip assignment: Advantages and implications for practice”, paper presented at the fifty-eighth meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC; copy available from BoyceD E, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60607
9.
GoldsteinG SMosesL N, 1975, “Interdependence and the location of economic activities”Journal of Urban Economics260–85
10.
GordonPWingoL, 1981, “Optimal urban plans”Environment and Planning A13575–580
11.
GreenbergM R, 1978Applied Linear Programming for the Socio-economic and Environmental Sciences (Academic Press, New York)
12.
HartwickJ M, 1974, “Price sustainability of location assignments”Journal of Urban Economics1147–160
13.
HartwickP GHartwickJ M, 1974, “Efficient resource allocation in a multinucleated city with intermediate goods”Quarterly Journal of Economics88340–352
14.
HartwickP GHartwickJ M, 1975, “The activity analysis approach to urban model building”Papers of the Regional Science Association3573–85
15.
HerbertD JStevensB H, 1960, “A model for the distribution of residential activity in urban areas”Journal of Regional Science221–26
16.
HopkinsL D, 1977, “Land-use plan design—quadratic assignment and central-facility models”Environment and Planning A9625–642
17.
HopkinsL DLosM, 1979, “Location-allocation algorithms for land use plan design with fixed and substitutable interactions”Journal of Regional Science19345–361
18.
HutchinsonB G, 1975, “Tools for urban land use — transport strategy planning”Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering285–92
19.
KimT J, 1978, “A model of zoning for a metropolis”Environment and Planning A101035–1045
20.
KimT J, 1979, “Alternative transportation modes in a land use model: A general equilibrium approach”Journal of Urban Economics6197–215
21.
KimT J, 1983, “A combined land use — transportation model when zonal travel demand is endogenously determined”Transportation Research B17449–462
22.
KimT J, 1986, “Modeling the density variations of urban land uses with transportation network congestion”Journal of Urban Economics6197–215
23.
KoopmansTBeckmannM, 1957, “Assignment problems and the location of economic activities”Econometrica2553–76
24.
LosM, 1978, “Simultaneous optimization of land use and transportation”Regional Science and Urban Economics821–42
25.
LosM, 1979, “A discrete convex programming approach to the simultaneous optimization of land use and transportation”Transportation Research B1333–48
26.
LowryI S, 1964A Model of Metropolis RM-4035-RC, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA90406–2138
27.
MillsE S, 1972, “Markets and efficient resource allocation in urban areas”Swedish Journal of Urban Economics74100–113
28.
MillsE S, 1975, “Planning and market processes in urban models”, in Public and Urban Economics: Essays in Honor of William Vickrey Ed. GriesonR E (D C Heath, Lexington, MA) pp 313–329
29.
MooreJ E, 1986Linearized, Optimally Configured Urban System Models: A Dynamic Mills' Heritage Model with Replaceable Capital PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
30.
MooreJ EWigginsL L, 1988, “Linearized, optimally configured urban system models: A profit-maximizing formulation”Environment and Planning A20369–390
31.
MooreJ EWigginsL L, 1989, “A dynamic Mills' heritage model with replaceable capital”, submitted to Papers of the Regional Science Association
32.
MuthR F, 1985, “Models of land-use, housing, and rent: An evaluation”Journal of Regional Science25593–606
33.
RichardsonH W, 1988, “Monocentric vs policentric models: The future of urban economics in regional science”The Annals of Regional Science221–12
34.
RichardsonH WGordonP, 1986, “Policentrism or dispersion: Implications for commuting and spatial structure”Korea Journal of Regional Science1121–133
35.
WardropJ G, 1952, “Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research”Proceedings of The Institute of Civil Engineering1 part II, 325–378
36.
WerczbergerE, 1987, “A dynamic model of urban land use”Regional Science and Urban Economics17391–410
