Article thumbnail

Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models

By Lambert van der Laan

Abstract

The paper analyses whether the basic monocentric model of urban structure and commuting explains actual commuting in Europe, i.e. the Netherlands. As in the United States much wasteful commuting is established. The basic model has a low degree of explanatory power. In order to get more in line with actual commuting, the paper elaborates two alternatives to the basic model. Besides a decon-centrated model, a cross-traffic model is developed. Particularly the latter is quite successful in explaining actual commuting. The paper pleads for endo-geni-zing employment and stresses heterogeneity in labour demand and supply.

OAI identifier:

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1994). Beroepsbevolking, Forensisme en Mobiliteit. Projectrapport 1, de regionale structuur van het forensisme.
  2. (1996). Beyond polycentricity; the dispersed metropolis,
  3. (1994). Causality in the suburbanization of population and employment.
  4. (1993). Challenges to the monocentric model. Geographical Analysis,
  5. (1998). Changing urban systems; an empirical analysis at two spatial levels.
  6. (1992). City and suburb: urban models with more than one employment center.
  7. (1994). Commuting in restructuring urban regions. Urban Studies,
  8. (1985). Development and the Landowner: an analysis of the British Experience.
  9. (1993). Development games in non-monocentric cities.
  10. (1989). Econometric studies of urban population density: a survey.
  11. (1996). Employment decentralization in US metropolitan areas: is Los Angeles an outlier or the norm?
  12. (1993). Enquête Beroepsbevolking Woon-werk verkeer 1987-1990. Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
  13. (1993). Exogenous workplace choice in residential location models: is the assumption valid? Geographical Analysis,
  14. (1990). Impact of technological developments on urban form and travel behaviour.
  15. (1974). Labour market areas: uses and definition.
  16. (1992). Local Labour Markets: Problems and Policies.
  17. (1964). Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent.
  18. (1991). Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra: Op weg naar 2015: deel 3.
  19. (1988). Monocentric vs. policentric models: the future of urban economics in regional science.
  20. (1995). Planned communities, self-containment and commuting: a cross-national perspective. Urban Studies,
  21. (1997). Polycentrism, commuting, and residential location in San Francisco Bay area.
  22. (1995). Reinventing the suburbs: old myths and new realities. Presentation to the Presidential Panel of the IBG.
  23. (1991). Spatial Labour Markets in the Netherlands.
  24. (1972). Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. Published for Resources for the Future, Inc. The Johns Hopkins Press:
  25. (1991). Subcenters in the Los Angeles region.
  26. (1983). The evolution of the suburban space economy. Urban Geography,
  27. (1994). The monocentric model and employment location.
  28. (1992). The Randstad a metropolis? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,
  29. (1992). The Randstad: a research and policy laboratory.
  30. (1987). The structure of urban equilibria: a unified treatment of the Muth-Mills model.
  31. (1988). The uncertain future of the urban core.
  32. (1988). Urban Commuting Journeys Are Not ‘Wasteful’.
  33. (1993). Urban revitalization in the Netherlands: current trends versus actual policies. European Planning Studies,
  34. (1968). Urban worker mobility.
  35. (1989). Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
  36. (1991). Wasteful commuting: A Re-examination.
  37. (1992). Wasteful commuting: A resolution.
  38. (1987). Workplace location, residential location, and urban commuting.