Reversing Direction of Transportation Planning Process
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 125, Issue 3
Abstract
The process of transportation planning begins with an assumed land use and then projects future traffic volumes. To determine land-use limitations as a function of the capacity of the transportation system, we reversed the direction of the planning process, beginning with transportation system characteristics as the independent variable and employment and population as dependent variables. We ultimately developed a direct estimation model. This technique directly estimates zonal trip ends based on transportation system variables that include link volumes, roadway types, travel distances, and the geographical position of the zone. Additionally, we regressed retail employment, nonretail employment, and population to zonal trip ends. We calibrated this model for the 1967 base year in the Charlottesville, Va. area and then applied it for the 1979 forecast year. We then used lessons learned to calibrate the model for the 1979 base year (a training set of data) and apply it for the 1990 forecast year (a test set of data). We suggest how this model formulation might be interpreted to yield land-use limits as a function of traffic volumes and discuss subsequent application of this approach to consider policy options that arise in the context of transportation planning.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Comsis Corp. ( 1993). A guidance manual for implementing effective employer-based travel demand management programs. Comsis Corp., Silver Spring, Md.
2.
Deakin, E. A. ( 1991). “Jobs, housing, and transportation: Theory and evidence on interactions between land use and transportation.” Spec. Rep. 231, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
3.
Deen, T. ( 1994). “Transportation dilemma: Mobility versus the environment.” 2nd IRF/ITE Executive Conf. on Traffic Congestion Mgmt., International Road Federation/Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C.
4.
Gur, Y. J. ( 1983). “Estimating trip tables from traffic counts: Comparative evaluation of available techniques.” Transp. Res. Rec. 944, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 113–117.
5.
Hartgen, D. T. ( 1995). “Virtual models in transportation.” Transp. Q., 49(4), 73–80.
6.
Metro. ( 1998). “Myths and facts about Metro's 2040 framework.” 〈http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us./metro/growth/tfplan/tfmyths.html〉 25 Feb. 1998.
7.
Middlesex Somerset Mercer Regional Council. ( 1992). The impact of various land use strategies on suburban mobility. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.
8.
Miller, J. S. ( 1998). “Reversing the direction of the transportation planning process: Measuring transportation infrastructure constraints on land use with historical data,” PhD dissertation, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.
9.
Miller, J. S., and Demetsky, M. J. ( 1997). “Planning framework for developing sustainable transportation systems.” Proc. of the ASCE: Quality Assurance: A Nat. Commitment, R. Nivargikar and D. Reinhart, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va.
10.
National Association of Regional Councils. ( 1994). Costs and effectiveness of transportation control measures (TCMs). Apogee Research, Inc.,
11.
Polzon, S. ( 1996). “Prescribing the future, not predicting the future: Are we moving beyond the need for travel demand modeling?” Urban Transp. Monitor, 10(23), 3–5, 16.
12.
“Quick sell for San Diego's SOV passes for HOV privileges.” (1996). Urban Transp. Monitor, Vol. 10(23), 1, 16.
13.
Sen, A., and Soot, A. ( 1981). “Selected procedures for calibrating the generalized gravity model.” Proc., 27th North Am. Meeting of the Regional Sci. Assoc., (also shown as Papers of the Regional Sci. Assoc.), Vol. 48, Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, 165–176.
14.
Strickland, S. G. ( 1994). “USA urban congestion: Problems and issues.” 2nd IRF/ITE Executive Conf. on Traffic Congestion Mgmt., Washington, D.C.
15.
TR News 167. (1993). “Critical research needs in land use, transportation, and air quality,” July–August, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
16.
U.S. DOT ( 1992). Intermodal surface transportation efficiency act: A guide to the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
17.
U.S. DOT and the EPA ( 1993). Clean air through transportation: Challenges in meeting national air quality standards, (a joint report pursuant to Section 108(f)(3) of the Clean Air Act), August, U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
18.
U.S. General Accounting Office. ( 1993). “Urban transportation: Reducing vehicle emissions with transportation control measures.” Rep. No. GAO/RCED-93-169, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
19.
Van Zuylen, H. J., and Willumsen, L. G. ( 1979). “The most likely trip matrix estimated from traffic counts.” Transp. Res., 14B, 281–293.
20.
Virginia DOT ( 1985). Charlottesville area transportation plan. Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Va.
21.
Vuchic, V. R. ( 1992). “Urban passenger transportation modes.” Public transportation, G. E. Gray and L. A. Hoel, eds., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 125 • Issue 3 • May 1999
Pages: 231 - 237
History
Received: May 5, 1998
Published online: May 1, 1999
Published in print: May 1999
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.