Current operational urban land‐use–transport modelling frameworks: A review

Abstract

Various alternative frameworks are available for modelling urban land‐use–transport interaction. This paper provides a detailed review of six of these frameworks that have been or are currently being used to develop operational models. The intention is to indicate what is the general nature of the current state of practice and what is now available for practical modelling work in the area. The intention is also to compare the current state of practice with what might be the ideal in various respects. The six frameworks reviewed (ITLUP, MEPLAN, TRANUS, MUSSA, NYMTC‐LUM and UrbanSim) are considered in terms of their representations of physical systems, decision‐makers and processes, along with various more general modelling and implementation issues. None matches the ideal as envisaged here in all respects. However, a wide range of policy considerations can be handled explicitly with what is available, and more recent developments show an encouraging trend towards expansion in the scope of what can be considered. Further strengthening of the behavioural basis and relaxation of some of the more restrictive assumptions would appear to be both appropriate and likely in the future.

Acknowledgements

The review was developed as work done for TCRP Project H‐12 (Kriger et al., 1998). A previous version of the paper was the basis for a presentation at the Transportation Research Board Conference in January 1999.

Notes

The names of these frameworks and the software packages embodying them may be asserted by others to be proprietary terms or trade marks. The use of these names here does not imply that they have acquired for legal purposes any non‐proprietary or general significance, nor is any other judgement implied concerning their legal status.

A detailed discussion of the relative merits of microsimulation models relative to other modelling approaches is well beyond the scope of this paper. Miller (2003), among others, presents an in‐depth discussion of the method and its strengths and weaknesses.