Advertisement

Modelling Land-Use and Transport Interaction: Policy Analyses Using the IMREL Model

  • Christer Anderstig
  • Lars-Göran Mattsson
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

In some respects there is a renaissance in large-scale urban models—maybe somewhat unexpectedly. There are many reasons for this, both on the supply and the demand side. A brief retrospection could help to get this into perspective.

Keywords

Consumer Surplus Transportation Network Residential Location Travel Demand Employment Location 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anas, A. (1982), Residential Location Markets and Urban Transportation, Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  2. Anderstig, C. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1991), ‘An integrated model of residential and employment location in a metropolitan region’, Papers in Regional Science, vol. 70, pp. 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, Lyon.Google Scholar
  4. de la Barra, T. (1989), Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling: Decision Chains and Hierarchies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce, D.E. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1997), ‘Modelling residential location in relation to housing location and road tolls on congested urban highway networks’, Submitted to Transportation Research B. Google Scholar
  6. Eliasson, J. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1997), ‘TILT — A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices’, Paper presented at the Western RSA Conference, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  7. Fournier, S.F. and Bjurklo, L.-G. (1994), ‘ ”Purpose-specific” measures and assessment of flows in the Vägverket implementation of MEPLAN’, Paper presented at the conference on Network Infrastructure and the Urban Environment, Smädalarö Gärd, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  8. Governmental Bill (1994), ‘Finansiering av vissa väginvesteringar i Stockholms län m. m.’ (Financing of some road investments in the county of Stockholm etc.), Regeringens proposition 1993/94:86.Google Scholar
  9. Harris, B. (1994), ‘The real issues concerning Lee’s ”Requiem”’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, pp. 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. INRO Consultants (1993), ‘EMME/2 user’s manual’, Montréal.Google Scholar
  11. Johansson, B. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1995), ‘From theory and policy analysis to the implementation of road pricing: The Stockholm region in the 1990’s’, in Johansson, B. and Mattsson, L.-G. (eds), Road Pricing: Theory, Empirical Assessment and Policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlsson, P. and Svalgård, S. (1993), ‘Synergetic — a new travel demand and land-use model for the Stockholm region, integrated with EMME/2’, Paper presented at the 21st PTRC European Highways and Planning Annual Meeting, Manchester.Google Scholar
  13. Lakshmanan, T.R. (1998), ‘The changing context of transportation modeling: Implications of the new economy, intermodalism and the drive for environmental quality’, Chapter 3, this volume.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, D.B. (1973), ‘Requiem for large-scale models’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 39, pp. 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, D.B. (1994), ‘Retrospective on large-scale models’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, pp. 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lundqvist, L. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1992), ‘Modelling travel demand in an extended metropolitan region’, Paper presented at the 32nd European Congress of Regional Science Association International, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. Mattsson, L.-G. (1987), ‘Urban welfare maximization and housing market equilibrium in a random utility setting’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 19, pp. 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murtagh, B.A. and Saunders, M.A. (1987), ‘MINOS 5.1 user’s guide’, Technical Report SOL 83–20R, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Putman, S.H. (1998), ‘Results from implementation of integrated transportation and land use models in metropolitan regions’, Chapter 15, this volume.Google Scholar
  20. Ramjerdi, F., Jensen, T. and Rand, L. (1995), ‘Integrated land use, transport and environment models: State-of-the-art and a proposal for research’, TØI rapport 304/1995, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo.Google Scholar
  21. Svalgård, S. (1994), ‘The implementation of an integrated transport and land-use model, using new features of EMME/2 Release 7.0’, Paper presented at the 3rd European EMME/2 Users Meeting, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Department of Transportation (1994), ‘Commuting alternatives in the United States: Recent trends and a look to the future’, Office of University Research and Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Webster, F.V., Bly, P. H. and Paulley, N. J. (eds) (1988), Urban Land-Use and Transport Interaction: Policies and Models, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  24. Wegener, M. (1994), ‘Operational urban models: State of the art’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, pp. 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christer Anderstig
    • 1
  • Lars-Göran Mattsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Infrastructure and PlanningRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations