Urban Spatial Change and Excess Commuting

Abstract

IntroductionExcess commuting can be calculated from the difference between the average actual commute and the minimum (optimal) average commute in the standard linearprogramming transport-problem procedure. It has been extensively studied over the past two and a half decades, as it provides useful policy implications and insights into both the urban-travel efficiency levels and the potential commuting-travel savings that could be obtained given the existing jobs and housing-location distribution.The excess-commuting values obtained for different cities have been compared in many previous studies (for example,

Jobs-housing balance in an era of population decentralization: An analytical framework and a case study

“…This problem has been identified and discussed extensively in the United States (US) since the late 1990s (Ewing, 1997;Gordon and Richardson, 1996;Horner and Mefford, 2007;Lucy and Phillips, 1997;Peng, 1997;Sultana, 2002;Sultana and Weber, 2007;Yang, 2008). More recently, concerns over the negative impact of sprawl on urban transport sustainability have also been expressed in Europe (Bart, 2010;Frost et al, 1998;García-Palomares, 2010;Ma and Banister, 2007;Schwanen et al, 2003;Travisi et al, 2010) and the Asia-Pacific region (Buchanan et al, 2006;Loo and Chow, 2008;Ma and Banister, 2006b;Merriman et al, 1995;O'Connor and Healy, 2002;Watts, 2009;Zhao, 2010). Population decentralization is taking place in many cities worldwide.…”

“…The resulting jobs-housing imbalance has been analyzed both theoretically and empirically by urban economists, geographers and planners with increasingly refined methodological tools for measuring jobs-housing balance (Giuliano and Small, 1993;Peng, 1997;Sultana, 2002), minimum commute (Buliung and Kanaroglou, 2002;Hamilton, 1982Hamilton, , 1989White, 1988), excess commute (Charron, 2007;Ma and Banister, 2006a;Yang, 2008), maximum commute (Black and Katakos, 1987;Charron, 2007;Horner, 2002;Ma and Banister, 2007), spatial mismatch (Horner and Mefford, 2007;Immergluck, 1998;Niedzielski, 2006) and accessibility (El-Geneidy and Levinson, 2006). Nonetheless, as Ma and Banister (2007) has pointed out, a comparison of the rates of excess commute among different cities is largely meaningless because of the heterogeneity of housing and/or jobs.…”

Impact of Particular Indicators of Urban Development of Cities in the Czech Republic on Average Road Traffic Intensity

“…Ma, Banister [8] deal with commuting and its efficiency linked to the urban form. They take into account excess-commuting (additional journey-to-work travel represented by the difference between the actual average commute and the smallest possible average commute, given the spatial configuration of workplaces and residential sites).…”

Jobs-Housing Balance: The Right Ratio for the Right Place

“…Excess commuting is the most debatable measurement. Ma and Banister (2007) claimed that excess commuting could explain nothing among different cities because of heterogeneity of residential and employments. Excess commuting indicates commute efficiency that could be improved by actual relative jobs-housing proximity rather than a "wasteful "commute that could be removed by jobs-housing balance.…”

“…Scholars and researchers have incorporated such variables as minimum (required) commuting (Buliung & Kanaroglou 2002, Giuliano & Small 1993, Hamilton 1982Horner 2002, Loo & Chow 2011, White 1988, Yang & Ferreira 2005, excess commuting, (wasteful commuting) (Charron 2007, Ma and Banister 2006a&2006b, Yang 2008, maximum commuting (Black & Katakos, 1987, Horner 2002, Loo & Chow 2011, Ma & Banister, 2007, spatial mismatch (Horner & Mefford 2007, Immergluck 1998, Niedzielski 2006, and job or labor accessibility (Shen 2000, Wang 2001, Levinson 1998, El-Geneidy & Levinson 2006.…”