Developing and Assessing Alternative Land-Use Scenarios from the MOLAND Model: A Scenario-Based Impact Analysis Approach for the Evaluation of Rapid Rail Provisions and Urban Development in the Greater Dublin Region

Abstract

Abstract:In this study, environmental sustainability implications of planned rail infrastructure investments on the urban form and development in the Greater Dublin Region (GDR) have been analysed incorporating the scenario analysis approach. Various scenarios are developed using the MOLAND Model applications including: A baseline scenario incorporating a continuation of the present dispersed pattern of urban development and an alternative scenario with rail-oriented corridor development, under varying conditions of economic growth. An alternative scenario was also developed for the recessionary development case considering the prolonged recession in the GDR. Further explorations incorporating a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach are developed to evaluate the sustainability implications of different land development scenarios in the Dublin Region. This is assisted by focussing on the impacts of rail investments on urban form and development as raised in the international comparative literature. The findings from the CBA assessment positively indicate that containment policies-as represented by the public transport oriented development indicate benefits over the dispersed development case by reducing the negative consequences of sprawl type of developments. In contrast, dispersed development in the baseline scenario indicates costs of continuation of such development patterns exceed the benefits in the long term. This study will contribute to policy support evaluation measures relating to the integration of scenario analysis tool with the CBA approach in assisting the evaluation of new transport infrastructure proposals.

Lessons Learned from Applying an Integrated Land Use Transport Planning Model to Address Issues of Social and Economic Exclusion of Marginalised Groups: The Case of Cape Town, South Africa

“…The mutual interaction of land use and transport has been widely documented [35][36][37][38] and models developed using these principles have been useful in the evaluation of policy and planning, such as the MEPLAN model for Leeds and Dortmund [39] and PECAS for Montgomery and Alberta [40,41]. For this paper, a cellular automata-based integrated land use transport model developed within the METRONAMICA framework by the Research Institute for Knowledge System (RIKS) [31] and used by amongst others [42][43][44][45][46][47] is presented here to show the relationship between land use and transport. This model was selected because the literature review revealed that there was a gap in both South African and African literature on the application and utilisation of a cellular automata (CA)-based land use transport model to understand urban dynamics, in that regard, METRONAMICA was an ideal model.…”

Cost-Benefit Evaluation Tools on the Impacts of Transport Infrastructure Projects on Urban Form and Development

“…For instance, it evaluates the costs and benefits of transport provisions by carrying out empirical research in a given urban area in a specified time period. The examples can be found in Donaldson [29], Perl [30] and Ustaoglu et al [31,32]. The second group of literature derives indicators to measure and evaluate the costs and benefits of transport provisions.…”

Evaluating the Effective Physical Indicators of Built Environment on Promotion of Sustainable Transportation: The Case of Sanandaj City

“…They believe that street connectivity, density and development of mixed land-use, reduce the distance between destinations and can improve conditions for physical activity. Thus, these factors can promote active travel and increase the level of walking and cycling for both transport and recreational purposes (Ustaoglu et al, 2017).…”

“…Connected problems include the potential risk of noncommunicable diseases such as obesity (Abraído-Lanza, Shelton, Martins, & Crookes, 2017; Thurber et al, 2018), type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (Abraído-Lanza et al, 2017), cancers and mental illnesses (Fakhrzadeh et al, 2016; Kim et al, 2016; Lawrence, Engelke, & Schmid, 2017; Ustaoglu, Williams, Petrov, Shahumyan, & van Delden, 2017). According to the statistics, physical inactivity and lack of mobility are associated with a 21% to 27% increased risk of colon cancer, a 27% increased risk of diabetes and heart disease, and a 30% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (John et al, 2017; Tabatabaei, Ardabili, Haghdoost, Nakhaee, & Shams, 2017).…”