DELPHI FORECASTS OF LAND USE:

TRANSPORTATION INTERACTIONS
By Violetta Cavalli-Sforza 1 and Leonard Ortolano, 2 M. ASCE

(Reviewed by the Urban Transportation Division)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: The Delphi method is used to predict the impacts of three alter-
native transportation programs in San Jose, California. Variables projected con-
cern both land use (e.g., number of single-family housing units) and choice of
transit mode. Forecasts are made for 1990 and 2000 for four spatial zones within
San Jose. Delphi panelists are individuals familiar with land use and transpor-
tation issues in the San Jose area. A preliminary questionnaire survey is used
to set general economic conditions and land use policies that serve as a context
for specific forecasts of land use-transportation interactions. Strengths and
weaknesses of the Delphi method in forecasting land use are assessed.

INTRODUCTION

Physical infrastructure, e.g., sewerage and highways, can significantly

influence land development; reciprocally, patterns of land use can affect
the utilization and performance of infrastructure. Although infrastruc-
ture-land use interactions are widely acknowledged as being important,
there are few practical methods for predicting these interactions for a
particular region and infrastructure investment.
During the late 1970's researchers in the Program in Infrastructure
Planning and Management at Stanford University initiated an investi-
gation of alternative methods for examining relationships between in-
frastructure and land use. An early outcome of that investigation was a
state-of-the-art review of methods for forecasting the effects of public
works on land use (5). Subsequent research carried out by the Program
involved the development and application of forecasting procedures based
on dynamic systems analysis and the Delphi method. The dynamic sys-
tems research relied on computer modeling techniques to examine re-
lationships between housing and transportation. The resulting forecast-
ing approach was applied to Santa Clara County, California, and is
reported by Mehta and Dajani (10).
An application of the Delphi method to predict how alternative trans-
portation investments might affect land use and trip distribution pat-
terns is examined herein. The study area encompasses most of San Jose,
the largest city in Santa Clara County, California (Fig. 1). San Jose houses
one half of the county's population and, until a short time ago, provided
a much smaller share of the county's employment. This "jobs-housing
imbalance" resulted in one-directional peak-hour traffic congestion on
'Vice-Pres., Graphicon Software, Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.; formerly Research Asst.,
Dept.
2
of Civ. Engrg., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. 94305.
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Program in Infrastructure Planning and Management,
Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. 94305.
Note.—Discussion open until October 1, 1984. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re-
view and possible publication on July l l , 1983. This paper is part of the Journal
of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 3, May, 1984. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
947X/84/0003-0324/$01.00. Paper No. 18852.
324

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1.—Santa Clara County

the county's highway system. More recently, changes in both employ-

ment and residential location patterns have caused congestion of the
highway network to be severe in both directions of travel.
In the late 1970's regional and transportation planning agencies began
investigating alternative programs for alleviating highway congestion in
Santa Clara County. Both transit and nontransit oriented programs were
considered. The alternative transportation investments examined herein
are based on results of these preliminary regional transportation plan-
ning efforts.

OVERVIEW OF FORECASTING APPROACH

The Delphi method is a technique for obtaining and refining the opin-
ions of a group of informed individuals, referred to collectively as the
Delphi panel. Individuals participating in a Delphi exercise are selected
because of their knowledge of the issues under study. A typical Delphi
panel has about 8 to 12 members.
The use of "expert judgment" in forecasting has been investigated by
Helmer and Rescher (8) and Amara and Lipinski (1). The layperson pos-
sesses no special knowledge of the forecasting problem, and therefore
his or her judgment can be no more than a sensible guess based on the
information provided. Unlike the layperson, an expert draws upon two
additional sources of information: past experience with events similar to
the one being studied, and in-depth knowledge about the event and the
context in which it occurs. The forecasts obtained from a group of ex-
perts are more likely to span a realistic range of possibilities and are
likely to be more firmly grounded than those resulting from a larger
group of laypersons.
325

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 The basic instrument used in the Delphi technique is a questionnaire
that elicits quantitative responses to specific questions and encourages
comments that help clarify the bases for those responses. The question-
naire is submitted to the panelists on several occasions in an iterative
fashion. Starting with the second iteration, statistical and verbal sum-
maries of panel members' responses in the previous iteration are sub-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mitted to the panelists with a blank copy of the questionnaire. Panelists

are asked to review their previous responses and, if appropriate, to re-
vise them in light of information in the summaries. This process contin-
ues until a satisfactory agreement among panelists has been reached or
responses do not change between iterations. The objective of this iter-
ative process is to obtain reasonable agreement on all questions and to
provide a means of communication among panelists that maintains the
anonymity of individual panel members. This anonymity reduces the
likelihood that participants' opinions will be affected by panel members
who, in an ordinary meeting format, would be influential because of
their personal style, professional stature, etc. The use of questionnaires
administered iteratively also reduces social pressures to obtain a group
consensus.
The Delphi method has been used in a wide variety of circumstances,
most of which have little to do with land use planning (e.g., Refs. 3 and
9). In recent years, several investigators have experimented with the
Delphi method as a technique for urban and regional planning (e.g.,
Refs. 6 and 7). The research reported on herein pertains to an applica-
tion of the Delphi method in this planning context and evaluates the
method as a land use forecasting approach.
The San Jose case study application of the Delphi method involved
several parts. At the outset, a group of potential Delphi panelists was
identified and asked to participate in a preliminary mail questionnaire
survey. This preliminary survey was used to obtain information on the
economic and political conditions likely to prevail in Santa Clara County
during the coming few decades. Based on responses to the preliminary
survey, 17 individuals were identified as panelists for the Delphi study.
In the end, 12 panelists completed 3 rounds of the Delphi process over
a period of about 18 months. The following review summarizes aspects
of both the preliminary survey and the Delphi forecasting exercise. A
comprehensive presentation of the study, which includes the prelimi-
nary survey and the Delphi questionnaire, is given by Cavalli-Sforza et
al. (4).
Selection of Potential Delphi Panelists.—Planners in Santa Clara
County helped identify individuals who could be considered experts on
the study issues and who might be interested in being panelists. Each
potential panel member received a letter explaining the nature of the
research project and inviting him or her to contact the researchers for
further information. Typically, respondents who were not able or did
not feel qualified to participate provided additional names of possible
panel members.
Approximately 30 individuals expressed an interest in being study
participants. They were mailed a preliminary survey questionnaire and
a detailed description of the proposed approach to the study. With a
clearer idea of the type of expertise and time demands that were ex-
326

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 pected, 17 people completed and returned the preliminary survey ques-
tionnaires. As mentioned previously, only 12 individuals completed all
3 iterations of the Delphi method. Their backgrounds were as follows:
urban economist, housing specialist, transportation agency analyst/en-
gineer (2), private transportation consultant (2), regional planning agency
analyst, county transportation commissioner, neighborhood association
representative, individual active in local politics, Chamber of Commerce
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

member, and school district superintendent.

The composition of the final Delphi panel was somewhat biased in the
direction of professional transportation analysts and planners. In addi-
tion, the panel did not include the perspectives of public utilities, private
business concerns, land developers, or real estate agents. Several pro-
spective panelists in these occupations expressed an interest in the study
but considered the time required for their participation to have too large
an opportunity cost. To some extent their viewpoints were represented
by other panelists who had extensive experience in matters related to
transportation and land use in Santa Clara County and, in this sense,
were well qualified as "experts."
Preliminary Survey.—The preliminary survey questionnaire was used
as the basis for defining the alternative transportation programs to be
considered in making projections with the Delphi method. In this study,
an alternative is not a single project considered in an isolated way, but
a set of actions that, in some sense, represents a possible "future" for
the study area.
There are many "futures" that could be subjected to a detailed fore-
casting exercise using the Delphi method. The preliminary survey ques-
tionnaire was used to delineate future scenarios that were considered to
be well within the range of possibility for the San Jose region. A set of
scenario components represented specific conditions or policies capable of
influencing the transportation-land use relationships under investiga-
tion. Panelists were asked to rate each scenario component in terms of
its potential significance in influencing transportation-land use interac-
tions in the study area. These are termed importance ratings. Panelists
were also encouraged to suggest other components that should be con-
sidered in formulating scenarios.
In addition to specifying importance ratings, participants were also
asked to rate each of several future states for each component in terms
of the likelihood of occurrence of the state. These results are termed
likelihood ratings.
Fig. 2 lists the scenario components submitted to the panelists and the
importance ratings for each component. The scenario components fall
into four categories: general economic conditions (components 1 and 2);
regional conditions (components 3 through 7); land use policies (com-
ponents 8 and 9); and transportation policies (component 10). The im-
portance rating is indicated on a 20-point scale with 0 as "completely
unimportant" and 20 as "extremely important." This scale was chosen
so that panelists could add other scenario components without being
forced to give the same importance rating to any two components.
Associated with each scenario component is a set of states, values that
the component may take on. For example, consider component 2, the
demand for electronic goods of the type produced in Santa Clara County.
327

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 n - 16
transportation.
• = 11.5 IQR = 9.5 - IS.5 -LU—LU
5 10 IS 20
C,, Future demand for electronic goods
of the type produced in Santa Clar;
County.
m = 10 IQR = 7 - 15
Ul—, I H i 1 L_|
0 5 10 15 20
O . Future size of the housing J

1
iH
in neighboring cities,
LL
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

m = 10 IQR = 5 - 15
0
4 . Future monthly t
in neighboring t
H I i ipi
5 10 15 20
5 , Future retail and service
opportunities in neighboring

O , Future employment opportunities

in neighboring cities.
H- 10 15 33
- 16

11.5 IQR = B - 15
1 1III 1i i I,
6 5 lb T 20
'. Future employment opportunity n = 16
in San Jose.
m = 15 IQR = 1 2 . 5 - IE I, l l 11 III
£ ib
, Future land use policies affecting
land outside the immediate impact
area of the proposed t r a n s i t corridt

9 , Future land use policies affecting

LLL_U!
l
iHt "lo
II I II I I I

land in the immediate impact area

of the proposed transit corridor.
m = 15 IQR <= 1 0 . 5 - 1 7 . 5
, II I I I J I I l l
6 10 15 20 f
10. Future transportation p o l i c i e s
affecting the immediate impact area
of the proposed t r a n s i t corridor.
m = 11.5 IQR = 8.5 - 16.5
| |
0
-I 1 I I I I I ,"I J
5 10 IS gb

FIG. 2.—-Importance Ratings of Scenario Components (m = median, IQR = inter-

quartile range = lower quartile - upper quartile)

Three states are used for this component, corresponding to whether de-
mand will increase, stay constant, or decrease. For components 1 through
7, the component states are "mutually exclusive." Using component 2
as an example, the demand for electronic goods produced in the region
cannot increase and decrease at the same time. For components 8 through
10, which concerns land use and transportation policies, states are not
mutually exclusive. For example, several land use policies can be em-
ployed simultaneously.
The states indicated for each component are all quite plausible, but
they do not exhaust the possibilities for any one component. Panelists
were encouraged to add other states as they saw fit and to rate the likeli-
hood of occurrence of each state. The likelihood rating employs a 5 point
scale with 1 as "very unlikely" and 5 as "very likely." As an example,
Fig. 3 shows the likelihood ratings for states used to characterize trans-
portation policies.
The use of both importance and likelihood ratings greatly simplified
the process of formulating alternative scenarios. Suppose the results in-
dicated that panelists were not in agreement about the likely state of a
particular component, but they all agreed that the component itself was
not very important. Based on the unimportance of the component, the
exercise of deriving alternative future scenarios could ignore the panel's
lack of certainty regarding likely states. On the other hand, suppose there
328

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 a) Complete Highway 85, Routes 101/2G0/ a = 16
6-

11
600 interchange, and Route 87 from
-4 '

« S.
1-280 to downtown San Jose.
2 •

0'
1 2 3 4 5

b) Expand bus system to 50CH- buses by 6 -I

1*1 1
1980 and to 750+ buses by 1990 with 4
service to downtown San Jose and
BART. 2
0
| ,_
1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c) Light Rail system built along = 16

Routes 87 and 85 from the downtown
area to Oakridge Shopping Center
and IBM. i
0
!1
1 2 3
S 0
4 5

d) Upgrading of Southern Pacific

Service between San Francisco and
San Jose.

e) Upgrading of Routes 87 and 85.

i
0

6
aA:
1 2 3

....
4
= 17

0
1
1
2 3 4 5

7
f) Allow for future use of cars and 6 n = 11
buses on Route 87.
4
2
0 , !
1 2 3 4 5

g) Widen Highuay 17 from San Jose to 6 n = 11

1,1 1 ,
Fremont. 4

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 T
I 1 1 1 ' , I number of responses
very unlikely uncertain likely very , I at each likelihood
unlikely likely £ I level
n •= total number of responses

FIG. 3.—Likelihood Ratings of Alternative Transportation Policies Affecting Im-

mediate Impact Area of Proposed Transit Corridor (Scenario Component #10)

was uncertainty about the likely state of a particular component, and

the panelists considered the component to be important. In this case,
several different scenarios could be constructed, each corresponding to
a different state for that component.
Responses to the preliminary questionnaire indicated that panel mem-
bers agreed on the likely state of all scenario components except those
involving transportation policies. Based on these results, three scenarios
were constructed, each of which uses a common set of assumptions re-
garding economic conditions and land use policies. Alternative trans-
portation policies and programs are what distinguish one scenario from
the other. The final three scenarios, referred to as "alternative trans-
portation programs," are based largely on complementary, rather than
competing, sets of transportation investments. Details regarding possi-
ble transportation investments in each program were taken from studies
of transportation alternatives in the Santa Clara County area (e.g., Ref.
2). Table 1 summarizes the key assumptions underlying the three alter-
native transportation programs used in the Delphi forecasting exercise.
Delphi Questionnaire Packet.—A separate questionnaire was used to
elicit the judgmental forecasts of panel members regarding several trans-
portation-land use variables potentially affected by the previously-noted
329

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 TABLE 1.—Scenarios Used in Delphi Exercise
Alternative Transportation Programs8
Alternative I: Alternative II: Alternative III:
auto emphasis bus emphasis rail emphasis
(1) (2) (3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Highway improvements Highway improvements Highway improvement,

with High Occupancy except expressway
Vehicle (HOV) lanes along Route 87
516 bus plan 750 bus plan 516 bus plan
Southern Pacific (SP) rail S.P. service as at present Present SP service until
service as at present 1990 with subsequent
improvements; light rail
system built-along
Routes 87 and 85
corridors
Land near light rail sta-
tions zoned for high-
density commercial
and/or residential
development
"Assumptions Common to All Scenarios: ,
1. General Economic Conditions: (a) Future cost of automobile transportation,
including fuel cost, will increase faster than other costs of living; (b) future avail-
ability of fuel for automobile travel is uncertain and likely to fluctuate; and (c)
demand for electronics goods of the type produced in Santa Clara County will
continue to increase.
2. Regional Conditions: (a) The size of the housing stock in Santa Clara County
cities, other than San Jose, will increase moderately; (6) the cost of housing in
Santa Clara County will continue to be higher in northern county cities than in
San Jose, and higher in San Jose than in southern county cities; (c) retail and
service facilities in northern county cities and in some central county cities will
continue to be at least as attractive as those in San Jose; and (d) employment in
San Jose is likely to experience a moderate to large increase; in other Santa Clara
County cities the employment increase will be moderate.
3. Land Use Policies: (a) Higher residential densities will be allowed in north-
ern county cities; (b) southern county cities will allow only very low density ur-
ban use of some agricultural lands; (c) land in Coyote will be held from devel-
opment; (d) new industrial development will be encouraged in the Milpitas/North
San Jose area; (e) new commercial and office development will be encouraged in
downtown San Jose; (/) new industrial development, except "clean industrial,"
will be discouraged from locating near downtown San Jose; and (g) new man-
ufacturing industries will be encouraged in the Edendale area.

transportation programs. Forecasts w e r e obtained for the following vari-

ables: population, housing, employment, commute patterns, a n d choice
of transit mode. For each transportation program, all variables were pre-
dicted for each of two time periods: 1990 and 2000. Moreover, for any
particular scenario and year, the value of each variable was predicted
for each of four different " z o n e s " (Fig. 4).
To assist the panelists in making their forecasts, several supplemen-
330

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4.—Zones Used In Forecasting Population, Housing and Employment Variables

tary items were included in the Delphi questionnaire packet. A short

attachment to the Delphi questionnaire clarified the land use classifica-
tions used for presenting baseline (1970 and 1975) data in the question-
naire text. This data was drawn largely from the database of the Pro-
jective Land Use Model (PLUM) used by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). Because the land use categories used by PLUM
did not correspond exactly to the residential/commercial/industrial clas-
sification commonly employed by local planning agencies (and in the
Delphi questionnaire), the attachment clarifying the baseline data was
essential.
The Delphi questionnaire packet also included a summary of the three
transportation alternatives and the assumptions to be used in making
forecasts. The assumptions were given in three categories: general eco-
nomic conditions, regional conditions, and land use policies (see Table
!)•
As indicated in Table 1, the transportation alternatives analyzed using
the Delphi method were:

1. Alternative I: Emphasis on highway system improvements.

2. Alternative II: Emphasis on bus system improvements and incen-
tives for car and van pooling.
3. Alternative III: Emphasis on rail system improvements (Southern
Pacific and "light rail"), with special high density residential and com-
mercial zoning policies for station areas.

Several graphic aids were included in the Delphi questionnaire packet.

These consisted of a general map of the study area, 1978 and proposed
331

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 1990 land use maps for the area, and transparent overlays that indicated
the routes of facilities associated with each transportation alternative.
On each overlay, transportation lines corresponding to those which would
be built under a single alternative were illustrated. By placing this over-
lay on a land use map, a panelist could identify the locations of the
proposed improvements.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DELPHI FORECAST RESULTS

The final outcome of the study was a set of forecasts of land use,
commute patterns, and choice of transit mode for each of the three
transportation investment programs. The forecasts were based on three
iterations (or rounds) of the Delphi questionnaire. For most of the vari-
ables included in the study, the behavior of the medians and other sta-
tistical descriptors of the distributions of responses during rounds 2 and
3 met conventional criteria for terminating a Delphi exercise. (These cri-
teria, which are based on convergence and stability of panelists' re-
sponses, are summarized in Ref. 4.) Time and budget constraints pre-
cluded the implementation of a fourth round.
An example of how panelists' responses changed over successive it-
erations of the Delphi questionnaire is given in Table 2. The consistent
inwards shifting of the upper and lower quartiles towards the median
is typical and desirable in the Delphi method. Since the interquartile
range is a measure of variability in the response distribution, a decreas-
ing value for the range indicates lowered variability, and therefore more
agreement (convergence) in the responses. The stability of the response
distribution is shown by the small changes in the median between rounds
(as a percentage of the median), and by the inward shifts in the upper
and lower quartiles from rounds 1 to 2 and rounds 2 to 3. The tendency
to successively smaller changes indicates that constant values are being

TABLE 2.—Population Forecasts for Zone 3 (Idenvalt)

POPULATION FORECASTS, IN THOUSANDS"
Zone 3 Year 1990 Year 2000
alternative8 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
I 118 127 120 144 149 144
105-256 113-206 114-167 115-377 137-269 135-227
(12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12)
II 121 129 123 146 151 145
105-263 114-216 114-189 115-384 140-276 137-227
(12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12)
III 120 124 123 140 151 148
106-227 118-206 119-194 118-283 138-245 137-215
(12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12)
a
I = auto emphasis; II = bus emphasis; III = rail emphasis. Table 1 details
alternatives.
b
Top number in each box is median response; middle numbers are lower and
upper quartiles; bottom number is total number of responses.

332

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 reached for the quartiles and that the response distribution is stabilizing.
Small changes in the median or slight outward shifts of the quartiles do
not necessarily indicate a lack of stability and convergence; they can be
interpreted as "noise." The distribution of responses to all other ques-
tions in the Delphi questionnaire show a pattern similar to the results
in Table 2.
The third-round Delphi forecasts passed the following tests designed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to check for internal consistency of the predictions:

1. Household Size. The ratio of forecasted population to housing units

was compared to the same ratio in the base year (1975). Somewhat smaller
ratios were expected because of the tendency toward smaller sized
households.
2. Land Availability. This test checked that the projected growth would
not exceed the amount of developable land in each study zone, consid-
ering the possibilities for redevelopment and a reasonable intensification
of land use.
3. Commercial Development versus Population and Industry. Two statistics
were computed, the ratio of commercial employment to population and
the ratio of commercial employment to industrial employment. Fore-
casted values of these ratios were compared to corresponding base year
(1975) values. These comparisons were made to check that projected
changes were reasonable in view of what is known about the develop-
ment trends and physical characteristics of the study area.

Land Use Forecasts.—The Delphi questionnaire was used to obtain

predictions of the following land use indicators: population, single-fam-
ily units, multi-family units, commercial employment, and industrial
employment. Fig. 5 summarizes the final projections aggregated over

1970 1975 1990 2000

350 391

228.1 269.8 357 391

36 1 109
POPULATION

I970 I975 I990 2000 I 9 7 5 197 5 I990 2000

89 96 I 19 59

52.3 65.9 88 97 n 2I.5 29.7 19 59

85 92 m 56 66
SINGLE FAMILY UNITS MULTI-FAMILY UNITS

I970 I975 I990 2000 I970 I975 I990 2000

61 71 I 51 61

16.1 19.5 65 76 n 15.1 11.6 56 62

71 81 m 57 65
COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT

FIG. 5.—Summary of Forecasts for Study Area (Roman Numerals = Transporta-

tion Alternatives. Defined in Table 1. All Entries are Medians of Responses to
Third Round Delphi Questionnaire. Results, Given in Thousands, Represent Ag-
gregate Values for All Four Zones)
333

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 the four zones comprising the study area. Although the aggregate fore-
casts in Fig. 5 do not illustrate the predicted land use changes within
individual zones, they summarize the projected, differential develop-
ment impacts of the transportation alternatives. A presentation of the
Delphi panel's forecasts spatially disaggregated into zones is given in
Ref. 4.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In the opinion of the panelists, population would be only marginally

impacted by alternative transportation investment schemes. Small gains
in population were projected for the bus emphasis (II) and rail emphasis
(III) alternatives. These were expected to provide better transit access to
and within the study area compared to the auto emphasis alternative
(I)-
These population forecasts are reasonable considering that most of the
study area's population increase has been and will probably continue to
be due to migration from other areas. Transportation is unlikely to be a
key consideration in a person's decision to move to Santa Clara County.
Other factors, such as employment opportunities and the cost of hous-
ing, are far more significant. The small differences in population under
the three alternatives are primarily attributable to shifts within the re-
gion. Improvement of the transportation system in the San Jose area
gives it a competitive advantage over the remainder of Santa Clara County.
By 1990, expansion of the bus system and ridepooling incentives would
already be in effect, and improvements to the rail system would be an-
ticipated (but not fully in place). The forecasts reflect this by showing
greater increases in the 1990 population for Alternatives II and III in
comparison to Alternative I. For the year 2000, the proportion of people
using buses or sharing rides would not be sufficient to keep the high-
ways uncongested. Thus, the year 2000 population forecast is essentially
the same for Alternatives I and II, the alternatives emphasizing the high-
way system. In contrast, the rail system would be completely opera-
tional by 2000 and is shown to have an effect on population greater than
its impact in 1990 relative to the other transportation schemes.
The single and multi-family housing forecasts (considered jointly) show
two kinds of relationships between alternative transportation improve-
ments and residential development. The first concerns the total number
of housing units. As in the case of the population forecasts, the housing
totals for the auto and bus alternatives (I and II) are quite similar, and
there is a slightly higher total for the rail emphasis alternative (III). A
second type of relationship, most noticeable in the rail alternative, in-
volves a shift from single family to multi-family housing, This shift is
commonly associated with transit systems; they serve higher residential
densities more efficiently than low densities and will, given appropriate
zoning policies, encourage denser residential development if there is a
perceived demand for high accessibility housing.
The commercial employment results indicate that panelists believed
the rail emphasis alternative (III) would stimulate commercial develop-
ment relative to the other transportation programs. The spatially dis-
aggregated forecasts show much of the increase in commercial employ-
ment occurring in central San Jose, the zone containing the city's
downtown area (see Fig. 6). Accessibility to that zone would clearly be
improved greatly by the rail investments.

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 Finally, the industrial employment forecasts indicate small but spa-
tially significant impacts of transportation on industrial development. The
year 2000 impacts are expected to be more marked than those in 1990,
because of the lead time required for industrial construction. Much of
the industrial growth is predicted to occur through infill and redevel-
opment of the central and south San Jose zones. These are zones in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

which earlier, rapid growth left scattered vacant lots and abandoned
buildings, which were later marked for redevelopment. In contrast, Ed-
envale, which was once a center of industrial growth, has nearly run
out of land; and Almaden is too mountainous and residential to be suit-
able for substantial industrial development.
Forecasts of Commute Patterns and Modal Splits.—An important po-
tential impact of alternative transportation investments is their ability to
affect the relationship between where people live and where they work.
To examine this, Delphi panelists were asked to forecast the percentage
of study area employees living inside and outside the study area (the 2
percentages sum up to 100%). An illustrative result is for the auto al-
ternative (I) in 1990. In this case, Delphi panelists felt that 46% of study
area employees would reside inside the study area. The corresponding
forecasts for the bus and rail alternatives (II and III) were 2% higher.
These commute pattern forecasts could be used together with the modal
split forecasts described subsequently to predict the number of persons
using each transit mode. This exercise, which would utilize census data
for labor force participation rates, is beyond the scope of this study.
Modal split forecasts for work trips distinguished between two types
of trip-makers: (1) People residing and working within the area (study
area commuters); and (2) people either residing within and working out-
side the study area or residing outside and working within the study
area (regional commuters).
The modal choice forecasts were requested in terms of percent of total
home-work person trips for various transportation modes. Combina-
tions of modes were included because transit trips may require more
than one mode from trip origin to destination. By asking Delphi panel-
ists to predict directly the proportion of trips for distinct modes and mode
combinations, the forecasting task was simplified. Although the com-
binations employed were limited to two transit modes, Delphi panelists
assumed that before and after using a transit system passengers would
walk, use taxicabs, bicycles, and cars, or be driven between home and
work and the transit lines. The mode combinations employed in the
forecasts were assumed to exhaust the range of commonly selected
choices, and an "other mode" category was included for modes not oth-
erwise specified. The total number of mode combinations differed be-
tween the modal choice forecasts for study area commuters and for re-
gional commuters, reflecting the availability of more modes at the regional
level than at the study area level. An illustrative result is given in Fig.
7, which summarizes the modal split forecasts for study area commuters.
On the whole, the convergence and stability characteristics of the modal
split forecasts were similar to those of the land use forecasts. However,
the median was not used as a statistical descriptor of the response dis-
tributions for the modal choice forecasts. For any one forecast date and
transportation alternative, the percentages for each mode predicted by
335

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 6.—Forecasts of Commercial i m - FIG. 7.—Choice of Mode Forecasts for

ployment (All Table Entries are Medi- Study Area Commuters-—Work Trips
ans of Responses in Thousands) Only (All Percentages are Means of
Responses)

individual panelists should add up to 100%, but the medians of the panel's
responses did not typically sum to 100%. Because of this, the mean rather
than the median was used as a descriptor of central tendency of the
response distributions for the modal choice predictions. The mean has
the property that averages of the responses summed over the mode cat-
egories add up to 100%.

ASSESSMENT OF FORECASTING PROCEDURE

The study reported on herein provided an opportunity to assess the

applicability of the Delphi method as a tool in forecasting transportation-
land use interactions. The exercise revealed some of the problems as-
sociated with the Delphi technique used in this context. It also yielded
useful insights into improvements that could be made in future studies
employing the Delphi approach.
Without question, the single most troublesome aspect of the study
was the length and complexity of the Delphi questionnaire. This led to
major difficulties in persuading some panelists to complete and return
the questionnaires in a timely fashion. Since the panelists received no
monetary compensation for their efforts, it is hot hard to imagine the
motivational lag that might be experienced by a participant about to spend
two to four hours completing the second or third round of the same
complex questionnaire. The time required to collect the questionnaires
increased from 1-1/2 months for the first round to 3 months for the sec-
ond round and 4 months for the third round. Had the panelists been
remunerated for their participation, the time elapsed between rounds of
336

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 the questionnaire might have been shorter, which in turn would have
contributed to maintaining a higher level of interest and motivation among
the panelists. Monetary compensation for the Delphi panelists would
also have been helpful in attracting other experts who felt that the time
required to participate in the study would represent a financial loss to
their businesses.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The large amount of information requested on the Delphi question-

naire also caused problems for the Stanford University researchers con-
ducting the study. For each round of the questionnaire, approximately
5,000 items of information were analyzed with various computer soft-
ware packages. Substantial time was spent checking, analyzing, and
summarizing the forecasts received in one round in preparation for the
next round. Sometimes panelists had to be contacted by phone to clarify
the meaning of forecasts that appeared inconsistent with each other.
The time required to complete 3 rounds of the Delphi questionnaire,
18 months, is much greater than would be expected if such an exercise
had been undertaken by a consulting firm or a governmental agency.
The 18 month interval taken in the San Jose case resulted in part because
changes in Stanford research students participating in the study caused
discontinuities in the study. As previously indicated, the complexity of
the questionnaire also contributed to the long time required. The 18 month
completion time caused other problems. As the time between the start
and finish of the Delphi exercise lengthened, it became increasingly dif-
ficult to keep all panelists on as part of the study.
Having focused on problems caused by using a long and complex
questionnaire, consider now some ways of avoiding those difficulties.
An obvious step would be to decrease the questionnaire length by elim-
inating items. Reducing the number of alternative transportation pro-
grams would not be a good way to simplify a questionnaire, since many
impact studies consider at least three alternatives. Another unlikely place
to reduce questionnaire length is in the number of zones. When as-
sessing effects of physical infrastructure on land use, the spatial effects
are often the most interesting. Perhaps the best places to reduce ques-
tionnaire length are the number of forecast dates and the number of
variables. In the case of the San Jose case study, it is possible to conceive
of a worthwhile exercise involving only one forecast year and fewer
variables.
Another way to decrease the time required for the study is to increase
the motivation of the Delphi panelists to complete the questionnaire.
One approach is to offer panelists financial remuneration. There are
precedents for this in Delphi studies, and it probably would have been
effective in the San Jose case.
Although there are problems associated with the Delphi method, there
are also some advantages in comparison with alternative techniques of
forecasting transportation-land use interactions. Prior to the initiation of
the San Jose case study, the Stanford research team completed a state-
of-the-art review of alternative methods for forecasting the effects of in-
frastructure on land use (5). Most of the methods examined involved
mathematical models that could not be used without extensive data col-
lection efforts. Moreover, these mathematical modeling approaches typ-
ically ignored the wealth of information reflected in the intuitions, opin-

337

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 ions, and judgments of people living in the study area who could be
considered "local experts" on land use-related issues. In comparison with
sophisticated modeling procedures, the Delphi approach holds promise
as a practical technique for forecasting the effects of infrastructure on
land use. Its requirements for data are modest, generally much less than
those for the mathematical modeling approaches. Moreover, it relies on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

local experts, who make predictions based on their familiarity with the
local area and a knowledge of key variables and issues affecting land
use.
It is difficult to say whether judgmental forecasts, and in particular
Delphi forecasts, can be viewed as valid estimates of future land use
and transportation impacts. Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that
the Delphi approach to group forecasting seeks to obtain and refine the
judgment of experts in the subject under investigation, arid expert opin-
ion is considered in most fields to be an important source of information.
The accuracy of the forecasts, and therefore the validity of the Delphi
method for this type of forecasting, can only be checked against reality
when it happens, and then only in light of the differences between the
basic assumptions used in the study and actual actions and events.

CONCLUSIONS

The San Jose case study experience provides a basis for judging the
utility of the Delphi approach in forecasting effects of infrastructure on
land use. The shortcomings of the approach relate principally to the
challenge of preparing a Delphi questionnaire that addresses the central
forecasting issues without being excessively long or complex. Most prob-
lems in implementing the San Jose case study stemmed from the ques-
tionnaire's length. On the positive side, the case study attained a degree
of success. It was conducted with a very limited budget; and the re-
quirements, in terms of data, staff expertise, and computing facilities,
were all modest. Indeed, many planning consultants or government
planning offices could easily carry out an exercise like the San Jose study.
Moreover, the sought-after land use projections were obtained, and they
seem reasonable by themselves and in relation to each other. The ac-
curacy of the forecasts must remain an unexplored question, at least un-
til 1990 when the forecasts can be analyzed in relation to what actually
occurs between now and then.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers owe thanks to the 17 individuals who made the study
possible by serving as Delphi panelists. We are also indebted to our col-
leagues Jarir S. Dajani and Michael V. Russo for their contributions to
the San Jose case study. Anne Martin, a graduate student in the De-
partment of Civil Engineering at Stanford University, provided many
useful comments on a preliminary draft of this paper.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Amara, R. C , and Lipinski, A. J., "Some Views on the Use of Expert Judg-
ment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 3, 1972, pp. 279-289.

338

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339

 2. Association of Bay Area Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Com-
mission, "Santa Clara Valley Corridor Evaluation, Summary," Oakland, Calif.,
Mar., 1979.
3. Brockhaus, W. L., and Mickelson, J. F., "An Analysis of Prior Delphi Ap-
plication and Some Observations on Its Future Applicability," Technical Fore-
casting and Social Change, Vol. 10, Summer, 1977.
4. Cavalli-Sforza, V., et al., "Transit Facilities and Land Use: An Application of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 03/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the Delphi Method," Report No. 1PM-15, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, Calif., Jan., 1982.
5. Dajani, J. S., and Ortolano, L., eds., "Methods of Forecasting the Reciprocal
Impacts of Infrastructure Development and Land-Use," Report No. JPM-11,
Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., June, 1979.
6. Davis, J. M., "Land Use Forecasting: A Delphi Approach," thesis presented
to the University of Georgia, at Athens, Ga., in 1975, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
7. Ervin, O. L., "A Delphi Study of Regional Industrial Land-Use," Review of
Regional Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring, 1977, pp. 42-58.
8. Helmer, O., and Rescher, N., "On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sci-
ences," Management Science, Vol. 6, 1959, pp. 25-52.
9. Linstone, H. A., and Turoff, M., eds., The Delphi Method: Techniques and Ap-
plications, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, Mass., 1975.
10. Mehta, S., and Dajani, J. S., "SILUS: The Stanford Infrastructure and Land
Use System," Report No. IPM-12, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford Univ., Stan-
ford, Calif., Jan., 1981.

339

J. Transp. Eng., 1984, 110(3): 324-339