Modelling land use and transport policies to measure their contribution to urban challenges: The case of Madrid

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Alonso, Andrea ^a   Monzón, Andrés ^a   Wang, Yang ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

City challenges; Cordon toll; Land use and transport model; Policy assessment; Re densification; Teleworking

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; LAND USE CHANGE; MOBILITY; POLICY ANALYSIS; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; SUSTAINABILITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TELECOMMUTING; TRAFFIC CONGESTION; TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM; URBAN AREA;

MADRID [SPAIN]; SPAIN;

EID: 85014860623     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su9030378     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. United Nations. Smart Cities and Infrastructure; United Nations Economic and Social Council: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
2. European Union. Cities of Tomorrow-Challenges, Visions, Ways Forward; European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
3. European Union. Making Our Cities Attractive and Sustainable; Publications office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010.
4. United Nations. Climate Neutral Cities-How to Make Cities Less Energy and Carbon Intensive and More Resilient to Climatic Challenges; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
5. Saunders, M.J.; Kuhnimhof, T.; Chlond, B.; Silva, A.N.R. Incorporating Transport Energy into Urban Planning. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2008, 42, 874-882.
6. Alonso, A.; Monzón, A.; Cascajo, R. Comparative Analysis of Passenger Transport Sustainability in European Cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 578-592.
7. Alonso, A.; Monzón, A.; Cascajo, R. Measuring Negative Synergies of Urban Sprawl and Economic Crisis over Public Transport Efficiency. Available online: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0160017616687361 (accessed on 24 January 2017).
8. Geurs, K.T.; Wee, B. Land-use/Transport Interaction Models as Tools for Sustainability Impact Assessment of Transport Investments: Review and Research Perspectives. Eur. J. Transp. Infra. Res. 2004, 4, 333-355.
9. Wegener, M. The Future of Mobility in Cities: Challenges for Urban Modelling. Transp. Policy 2013, 29, 275-282.
10. Shepherd, S.P. A Review of System Dynamics Models Applied in Transportation. Trans. B Trans. Dyn. 2014, 2, 83-105.
11. INSIGHT-7FP-EC-Innovative Policy Modelling and Governance Tools for Sustainable Post-Crisis Urban Development. Available online: http://www.insight-fp7.eu/(accessed on 21 December 2016).
12. Guzman, L.A.; Hoz, D.; Monzón, A. Optimal and Long-Term Dynamic Transport Policy Design: Seeking Maximum Social Welfare through a Pricing Scheme. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2014, 8, 297-316.
13. Wang, Y.; Monzon, A.; Ciommo, F.D. Assessing the Accessibility Impact of Transport Policy by a Land-use and Transport Interaction Model-The Case of Madrid. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 49, 126-135.
14. 2 transport emissions as a measure to reach sustainable scenarios. In Proceedings of the VII Conference on Transport Engineering, La Coruña, Spain, 2-4 July 2008. (In Spanish)
15. Lo Feudo, F. How to Build an Alternative to Sprawl and Auto-Centric Development Model through a TOD Scenario for the North-Pas-De-Calais Region? Lessons from an Integrated Transportation-land Use Modelling. Transp. Res. Proc. 2014, 4, 154-177.
16. European Commission. European Sustainable Cities-Report of the Expert Group on the Urban Environment; European Commission-DGXI Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection: Brussels, Belgium, 1996.
17. European Union. Progress towards the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020; European Union: Luxembourg, 2014.
18. Romanillos, G.; Alonso, A.; Wang, Y. Deliverable 2.2 Urban. Planning and Governance: Current Practices and New Challenges; INSIGHT 7FP-EC: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
19. European Environment Agency. Urban. Sprawl in Europe-the Ignored Challenge; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006.
20. Lewis, J.O.; Hógáin, S.N.; Borghi, A. Building Energy Efficiency in European Cities; URBACT: Saint-Denis, France, 2013.
21. European Commission. Green Paper-Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
22. Enemark, A.; Kneeshaw, S. How Cities Can Motivate Mobility Mindsets; URBACT: Nancy, France, 2013.
23. Colini, L.; Czischke, D.; Günter, S.; Tosics, I.; Ramsden, P. URBACT II Capitalisation against Divided Cities in Europe; URBACT: Nancy, France, 2013.
24. United Nations. United Nations Conference on Human Environment. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/humanenvironment (accessed on 21 December 2016).
25. European Commission. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area-Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
26. World Health Organization. Health Effects of Transport-related Air Pollution; World Health Organization: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011.
27. United Nations. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development-AGENDA 21. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2016).
28. Preston, J.; Rajé, F. Accessibility, Mobility and Transport-related Social Exclusion. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 151-160.
29. European Commission. Green Paper-Restructuring and Anticipation of Change: What Lessons from Recent Experience? European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
30. García, O.; Lucio, A.; Salas-Olmedo, M.H.; Romanillos, G.; Alonso, A.; Feijoo, C. Deliverable 2.1 Stakeholders Consultation; INSIGHT 7FP-EC: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
31. Alonso, A.; Monzón, A. Assessing the Progress towards Sustainability and the Role of Urban Transport-City of Madrid. In Proceedings of the 6th Transport Research Arena, Warsaw, Poland, 18-20 April 2016.
32. Pfaffenbichler, P. The Strategic, Dynamic and Integrated Urban Land Use and Transport Model MARS (Metropolitan Activity Relocation Simulator). Ph. D. Thesis, Technical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria, September 2003.
33. ALMUDENA-Statistical Database for Madrid Region. Available online: http://www.madrid.org/desvan/Inicio.icm?enlace=almudena (accessed on 21 December 2016).
34. Madrid Transport Consortium. EMTA-European Metropolitan Transport Authorities; Consorcio de Transportes de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
35. Alonso, A.; Monzón, A. Policy Priority Objectives: Comparative Assessment in Four European Cities. In Proceeding of the XII Congreso de Ingeniería de Transporte-CIT, Valencia, Spain, 7-9 June 2016.
36. CRTM-Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid (Public Transport Authority in Madrid Region). Available online: http://www.crtm.es/(accessed on 21 December 2016).
37. Madrid Region. Air Quality Strategy 2013-2020. Available online: http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?c=CM_Planes_FA&cid=1354532201832&language=es&pageid=1350931018212&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FCM_InfPractica_FA%2FCM_fichaInfPracticaServicios&vest=1350930997092 (accessed on 21 December 2016). (In Spanish)
38. Madrid Region. Land law for Madrid Region; Madrid Region: Madrid, Spain, 2001. (In Spanish)
39. Leboreiro, A. Territorial Planning in Global European Cities: The Case of Madrid. Ph. D. Thesis, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2015. (In Spanish)
40. Wegener, M. Operational Urban Models: State of Art. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1994, 60, 17-29.
41. Greiving, S.; Wegener, M. Integration of Transport and Land Use Policies: State of the Art. In Proceeding of the 9th World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, Korea, 22-27 July 2001.
42. Bravo, M.; Briceño, L.; Cominetti, R.; Cortés, C.E.; Martínez, F. An Integrated Behavioral Model of the Land-use and Transport Systems with Network Congestion and Location Externalities. Transp. Res. B Methodol 2010, 44, 584-596.
43. Lowry, I.S. A Model of Metropolis; Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1964.
44. Echenique, M.H.; Flowerdew, A.D.J.; Hunt, J.D.; Mayo, T.R.; Skidmore, I.J.; Simmonds, D.C. The MEPLAN Models of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund. Transp. Rev. 1990, 10, 309-322.
45. Hunt, J.D.; Abraham, J.E. Design and Implementation of PECAS: A Generalised System for Allocating Economic Production, Exchange and Consumption Quantities. In Integrated Land-Use and Transportation Models; Lee-Gosselin, M., Doherty, S., Eds.; Elsevier Science: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 253-273.
46. Wegener, M. The IRPUD Model; Spiekermann & Wegener Urban and Regional Research(S&W): Dortmund, Germany, 2011.
47. Martínez, F. MUSSA: Land Use Model for Santiago City. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1996, 1552, 126-134.
48. Simmonds, D.C. The Design of the DELTA Land-use Modelling Package. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1999, 26, 665-684.
49. TU-Wien. Transport Research Institute in the Technische Universitat Wien. Available online: http://www.ivv.tuwien.ac.at/forschung/mars-metropolitan-activity-relocation-simulator/overview/(accessed on 21 December 2016).
50. Pfaffenbichler, P.; Emberger, G.; Shepherd, S. The Integrated Dynamic Land Use and Transport Model MARS. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2008, 8, 183-200.
51. Guzmán, L.A. Dynamic Optimization of Sustainable Mobility Strategies in Metropolitan Areas. Ph. D. Thesis, Technical School of Civil Engineering, Madrid, Spain, July 2011. (In Spanish)
52. Wang, Y. Assessing Urban Mobility through Participatory Scenario Building and Combined Utility Regret Assessment. Ph. D. Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, April 2014.
53. Wang, Y.; Alonso, A.; Monzón, A. Transport Policy Evaluation by a LUTI Model (MARS). In The TRANSPACE Model; Dell' Olio, L., Cordera, R., Ibeas, A., Eds.; GIST-Transport Systems Research Group: Santander, Spain, 2016; pp. 34-65.
54. Madrid-Ayuntamiento. (Statistical Database for Madrid City). Available online: http://www-2. munimadrid.es/CSE6/jsps/menuBancoDatos.jsp (accessed on 21 December 2016).
55. INE-National Statistical Database for Spain. Available online: http://www.ine.es/(accessed on 21 December 2016).
56. DESVAN. Statistical Database for Madrid Region. Available online: http://www.madrid.org/desvan/Inicio. icm?enlace=desvan (accessed on 21 December 2016).
57. OECD-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Projections Database. Available online: https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gdp-long-term-forecast.htm (accessed on 21 December 2016).
58. Valdes, C.; Monzon, A.; Benitez, F.G. Sustainable Urban Transportation Strategies: Searching for Synergies. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 1066-1075.
59. Ziltener, P. The Economic Effects of the European Single Market Project: Projections, Simulations and the Reality. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2004, 11, 953-979.
60. Anas, A.; Lindsey, R. Reducing Urban Road Transportation Externalities: Road Pricing in Theory and in Practice. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2011, 5, 66-88.
61. Coenen, M.; Kok, R.A.W. Workplace Flexibility and New Product Development Performance: The Role of Telework and Flexible Work Schedules. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 564-576.
62. Musterd, S.; Bontje, M.; Ostendorf, W. The Changing Role of Old and New Urban Centers: The Case of the Amsterdam Region. Urban Geogr. 2006, 27, 360-387.
63. Armuña, C.; Arenal, A.; Feijoo, C. Deliverable 7.5 Comparative Evaluation and Assessment; INSIGHT 7FP-EC: Madrid, Spain, 2016.
64. Spanish Statistical Office. Population Projections for Spain 2016-2066-Methodology; Spanish Statistical Office: Madrid, Spain, 2016; pp. 1-56. (In Spanish)
65. Brewer, A.M. Work Design, Flexible Work Arrangements and Travel Behaviour: Policy Implications. Transp. Policy 1995, 5, 93-101.
66. Zhang, W.; Kockelman, K. Urban Sprawl, Job Decentralization, and Congestion: The Welfare Effects of Congestion Tolls and Urban Growth Boundaries. In Proceeding of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 12-16 January 2014.
67. Eliasson, J. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stockholm Congestion Charging System. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2009, 43, 468-480.
68. Eliasson, J.; Hultkrantz, L.; Nerhagen, L.; Rosqvist, L.S. The Stockholm Congestion-charging Trial 2006: Overview of Effects. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2009, 43, 240-250.
69. Parry, I.W.;Walls, M.; Harrington, W. Automobile Externalities and Policies. J. Econ. Lit. 2007, 45, 373-399.
70. Transport Styrelsen. Available online: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/road/Congestion-taxes-in-Stockholm-and-Goteborg/(accessed on 21 December 2016).
71. Cegarra-Leiva, D.; Sánchez-Vidal, M.E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.C. Work Life Balance and the Retention of Managers in Spanish Smes. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2012, 23, 91-108.
72. Nijland, L.; Dijst, M. Commuting-related fringe benefits in the Netherlands: Interrelationships and company, employee and location characteristics. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 358-371.
73. Lier, T.;Witte, A.; Macharis, C. HowWorthwhile is Teleworking from a Sustainable Mobility Perspective? The Case of Brussels Capital Region. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2004, 14, 244-267.
74. Vanoutrive, T.; Malderen, L.; Jourquin, B.; Thomas, I.; Verhetsel, A.; Witlox, F. Mobility Management Measures by Employers: Overview and Exploratory Analysis for Belgium. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2010, 10, 121-141.
75. Horvath, A. Environmental Analysis of Telework: What We Know and What We Do Not Know and Why. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), Arlington, TX, USA, 17-19 May 2010.
76. Cacciaguerra, G.; Gatti, M.P. Urban Re-densification and Regeneration: 21st Century City Strategies; WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment: London, UK, 2015; pp. 217-226.
77. Salvati, L. Urban Containment in Action? Long-term Dynamics of Self-contained Urban Growth in Compact and Dispersed Regions of Southern Europe. Land Use Pol. 2013, 35, 213-225.
78. Erli-Handayeni, K.D.M. TOD Best Practice: Lesson Learned for GHG Mitigation on Transportation Sector in Surabaya City, Indonesia. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 135, 152-158.
79. European Communities. Economic Crisis in Europe: Causes, Consequences and Responses; European Communities: Luxembourg, 2009.
80. Wang, Y.; Salas-Olmedo, M.H.; Alonso, A.; Monzón, A.; García-Palomares, J.C. Deliverable 5.3 Enhanced Version of the MARS Simulation Model; INSIGHT 7FP-EC: Madrid, Spain, 2016.
81. Salas-Olmedo, M.H.; Wang, Y.; Alonso, A. When GIS Meets LUTI: Assessing Accessibility with Local Coefficients for the LUTI Model MARS. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. Accepted.
82. Hupkes, G. The Law of Constant Travel Time and Trip-rates. Futures 1982, 14, 38-46.
83. Daly, H.E.; Ramea, K.; Chiodi, A.; Yeh, S.; Gargiulo, M.; Gallachóir, B.ó. Incorporating Travel Behaviour and Travel Time into TIMES Energy System Models. Appl. Energy 2014, 135, 429-439.
84. Marchetti, C. Anthropological Invariants in Travel Behavior. Technol. Forecast Soc. Chang. 1994, 47, 75-88.
85. Schafer, A. Regularities in Travel Demand: An International Perspective. J. Transp. Stat. 2000, 3, 1-31.