Transportation and Land Use

Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Department of Global Studies and Geography, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, United States
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous edition article by S.-L. Shaw, volume 11, pp 470–475, © 2009 Elsevier Ltd.

Glossary
Land use The nature and level of spatial accumulation of socioeconomic activities.
Monocentric city A city with most employment concentrated in one core area.
Urban form The spatial imprint of an urban transport system as well as the adjacent physical infrastructures.
Urban spatial structure Relationships arising out of the urban form and its underlying interactions of people, freight, and
information.
Urban sprawl Spread of urban developments to nearby undeveloped land around a city.

Cities are shaped by their transport infrastructures, such as roads, transit systems, or simply walkways. Since each city has a rather
unique historical, economic, political, and demographic context, there is a wide variety of urban forms, spatial structures, and
associated land uses. Even if the geographical setting of each city varies considerably, the urban form and its spatial structure
are articulated by two structural elements, nodes and links. While a node is a concentration of activities expressing a spatial hier-
archy, links are the relations with other nodes and surrounding areas through transport infrastructures. A centralized, or mono-
centric, city has a significant share of its activities in its center (main node) while a decentralized city has several nodes. Large
employers such as financial institutions are the main drivers of centralization. A cluster of activities is a concentration around
a specific node of high accessibility, which tends to be transport infrastructures such as a highway interchange, a transit nexus,
or a retail area. A significant trend that has impacted the urban spatial structure has been the decentralization and setting of multi-
centric cities.
Urban transportation is associated with a spatial form, which varies according to the modes being used. Grid-like street patterns
have endured through history, which was the case for many Roman cities built in the 1st Century as it was for American cities built in
the 20th Century. The reasons behind this permanence are relatively simple; a grid pattern jointly optimizes accessibility and avail-
able real estate. Obviously, many cities are not organized as a grid, often because they grew from a constrained location such as
a bay, an island, a hill, or a river junction. Local geographical and historical characteristics remain important influences on the urban
form.
In the 20th Century, cities developed a spatial structure relying on motorized transportation, particularly the privately owned
automobile. This trend has incited a shift from a grid pattern toward curvilinear and cul-de-sac patterns that are commonly found
in suburban areas. Dispersion, or urban sprawl, is taking place in many different types of cities, from dense, centralized European
metropolises such as Madrid, Paris, and London, to rapidly industrializing metropolises such as Seoul, Shanghai, and Mexico City,
to those experiencing recent, fast, and uncontrolled urban growth, such as Mumbai, Jakarta, and Lagos. Recent urban expansion is
consequently almost all geared toward the automobile. Therefore, there are significant differences in the density of cities across the
world, in addition to how this density varies from low-density suburbs to the urban core.

Evolution of the Urban Spatial Structure

Urbanization occurs in accordance to the development of urban transport systems, particularly in terms of their capacity and effi-
ciency. Historically, movements within cities tended to be restricted to walking, which made urban mobility rather inefficient and
time-consuming. Thus, activity nodes tended to be agglomerated and urban forms compact with mixed uses. Many modern cities
have inherited an urban form created under such circumstances, even though they are no longer prevailing.
The dense urban cores of many European and East Asian cities enable residents to make between one-third and two-thirds of all
trips by walking and cycling. At the other end of the spectrum, the dispersed urban forms of most Australian, Canadian, and Amer-
ican cities, which were built recently, encourage automobile dependency and are linked with high levels of mobility. Still, Chinese
cities in particular have experienced a high level of motorization, implying the potential of a convergence toward more uniform
urban forms. Many cities are also port cities, with trade playing an enduring role not only for the economic vitality but also in
the urban spatial structure with the port district being an important node. Airport terminals have also been playing a growing
role in the urban spatial structure since they can be considered as cities within cities.
The evolution of transportation has generally led to changes in urban form (Fig. 1). The more radical the changes in transport
technology have been, the more the urban form tends to be impacted. Among the most fundamental changes in the urban form is
the emergence of new clusters expressing new urban activities and new relationships between elements of the urban system. Many
cities are assuming a polycentric form, a change associated with new mobility patterns. The central business district (CBD), once the

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 13 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10327-0 463

464 Transportation and Land Use

Figure 1 One-hour commuting according to different urban transportation modes.

primary destination of commuters and serviced by public transportation, has been transformed by new manufacturing, retailing,
and management practices. Whereas traditional manufacturing depended on centralized workplaces and transportation, technolog-
ical and transportation developments rendered modern industry more flexible. In many cases, manufacturing relocated in
a suburban setting, if not altogether to entirely new low-cost locations offshore. Retail and office activities are also suburbanizing,
producing changes in the urban form. Concomitantly, many important transport terminals, namely port facilities and rail yards,
have emerged in suburban areas following new requirements in modern freight distribution brought in part by containerization.
The urban spatial structure shifted from a nodal to a multinodal character, implying new forms of urban development and new
connections to regional and global economic processes.
Initially, suburban growth mainly took place adjacent to major road corridors, leaving plots of vacant or farm land in between.
Later, intermediate spaces were gradually filled up, more or less coherently. Highways and ring roads, which circled and radiated
from cities, favored the development of suburbs and the emergence of important subcenters that compete with the CBDs for the
attraction of economic activities. As a result, many new job opportunities have shifted to the suburbs and the activity systems of
cities have been considerably modified. Depending on the economic sector upon which they specialize, cities, and even different
parts of a metropolitan area, can be experiencing development (or even decline) at completely different rates, leading to a highly
heterogenous urban landscape.

Urban Sprawl and Decentralization

Dispersion and decentralization had a substantial impact on contemporary urban forms. Urban sprawl has been dominant in North
America since the end of World War II, where land was abundant, transportation costs were low, and where the economy had
become dominated by tertiary and quaternary activities. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising to find that there is a strong
negative relationship between urban density and automobile use. In the context of cities with high automobile dependency, their
built-up areas have grown at a faster rate than have their populations. In addition, commuting became relatively inexpensive
compared with land costs, so households had an incentive to buy lower-priced housing at the urban periphery. Wherever there
is motorization, a pattern of sprawl takes shape.
Although transportation systems and travel patterns have changed considerably over time, one enduring feature remains that
most people are willing to travel between 30 and 40 min in one direction. Globally, people are spending about 1.2 h per day
commuting, wherever commuting takes place in a low- or a high-mobility setting. Different transport technologies, however, are
associated with different travel speeds and capacity. As a result, cities that rely primarily on nonmotorized transport tend to be
more compact than are automobile-dependent cities. Transport technology thus plays a very important role in defining urban
form and the spatial pattern of various activities. Still, the evolution of the urban form is path dependent, implying that the current
spatial structure is obviously the outcome of past developments, but that those developments were strongly related to local condi-
tions involving the setting, physical constraints, and investments in transportation infrastructures and modes.
 Transportation and Land Use 465

The Polycentric Paradigm

Urbanization involves an increased number of trips in urban areas. Cities have traditionally responded to growth in mobility by
expanding the transportation supply and by building new highways and transit lines. This expansion has mainly meant building
more roads to accommodate an ever-growing number of vehicles. Several urban spatial structures have accordingly emerged, with
the reliance on the automobile being the most important discriminatory factor. The outcome has been the dominance of the poly-
centric paradigm (Fig. 2).
The urban spatial structure considers the location of different activities in its central area and at its periphery. A central area is a cluster
of core and/or central activities. Core activities are those of the highest order in the urban spatial structure, namely tertiary and quater-
nary activities involved in management (finance and insurance) and consumption (retailing). They commonly benefit from a high level
of accessibility to a city’s workforce and customers, which is defined as the CBD. Central activities focus on the functions of production
and distribution with activities such as warehousing, manufacturing, wholesaling, and transportation. They require a good level of
accessibility, but need more land than core activities. Peripheral activities are primarily residential or servicing local needs.
Transportation systems influence the structure of communities at different scales, from districts to the whole metropolitan area.
For instance, one of the most significant impacts of transportation on the urban structure has been the clustering of activities near
areas of high accessibility. The impact of transport on the spatial structure is particularly evident in the emergence of suburbia.
Although many other factors are important in the development of suburbia, including low land costs, available land (large
lots), the environment (clean and quiet), safety, and automobile-oriented services (shopping malls), the spatial imprint of the auto-
mobile is dominant. Suburban developments have occurred in many cities worldwide, although North America has achieved
a lower density and automobile dependency more than any other place.
One way in which major cities have responded to the expansion of urban areas, congestion problems, and the increasing impor-
tance of interurban movements is through the construction of ring roads. Ring roads became an important attribute of the spatial
structures of cities with highway interchanges in suburban areas, the focus of new clusters of urban development. The extension
(and the overextension) of urban areas have created what are called periurban areas. They are located well outside the urban
core and the suburbs, but are within reasonable commuting distances; the term “edge cities” has been used to label clusters of urban
development taking place in suburban settings.

The Land UsedTransportation Nexus

Transportation and Land Use Interactions
Urban land use comprises two elements; the nature of land use relates to which activities are taking place where and the level of
spatial accumulation, which indicates their intensity and concentration. Most economic, social, or cultural activities imply a multi-
tude of functions, such as production, consumption, and distribution. These functions take place at specific locations and are part of
an activity system. Some activities, such as commuting and shopping, are routine because they occur regularly and are thus predict-
able. Other activities tend to be irregular and shaped by lifestyle (e.g., sports and leisure) or by specific needs (e.g., healthcare). Such
activities are usually related with the mobility of passengers. In addition, there are production activities that are related to
manufacturing and distribution, whose linkages may be local, regional, or global. Such activities are usually related with the
mobility of freight. Since activities have a different location, their separation is a generator of movements of passengers and freight
which are supported by transportation. Transportation and land use are therefore interrelated because of the locational and inter-
actional nature of urban activities.

Figure 2 Evolution of the spatial structure of a city.

466 Transportation and Land Use

Transportation and land use are part of a retroactive feedback system where they influence one another. Accessibility is shaped by
the structure, capacity, and connectivity of transportation infrastructure, which is not uniform. Since accessibility varies, this attri-
bute has an impact on land use, such as the location of new activities, their expansion, or densification. These changes will influence
the distribution and level of transport demand upon activity patterns. Changes in demand will shape the planning, maintenance,
and upgrade of transportation infrastructure, and services such as roads and public transit. Again, these changes will further impact
accessibility into a new cycle of interactions (Fig. 3).
The interactions between transportation and land use are also part of a complex framework that includes economic, political,
demographic, and technological changes. Several characteristics and processes have an influence on the dynamics between trans-
portation and land use. Changes in transportation technology, investment, and service characteristics can alter overall accessibility
levels as well as the relative accessibility of different locations. The recent trend toward digitalization is providing a new impetus to
urban mobility, through, for example, on-demand services and the availability of large amounts of information about the charac-
teristics of urban travel. E-commerce by itself is generating an entirely new set of patterns in urban freight distribution, particularly
with home deliveries.
The interactions between transportation and land use are often referred as a “chicken-and-egg” conundrum since it is empirically
difficult to demonstrate if transportation changes precede land use changes, or vice-versa. Land use characteristics, such as zoning
and regulations, the availability of land, public utilities, and telecommunication infrastructure, also affect activity patterns. Of
special importance are the changes in trip generation, both for passenger and freight, which are influenced by economic and demo-
graphic changes. Obviously, population growth and rising incomes are a vector for additional transportation demand. Trip patterns
may change in a number of ways, such as in terms of the number of trips, the timing of trips, their origin or destination, the mode,
and trip chaining (combining different purposes in a single trip). These changes in travel demand exert considerable influence on
the development of new transportation infrastructure or services.

The Land Use–Transportation System

Urban transportation aims at supporting transport demands generated by the diversity of urban activities in a diversity of urban
contexts. A key for understanding urban entities thus lies in the analysis of patterns and processes of the transport–land use system.
This system is highly complex and involves several relationships between the transport system, spatial interactions, and land use
(Fig. 4):

• Transport system. The set of transport infrastructures and modes that support urban movements of passengers and freight. It
generally expresses the level of accessibility and is composed of infrastructures conferring a level of supply. For instance, traffic
assignment models take an existing spatial interaction structure and infer flows within a transportation network. Conceptual
flows consequently become a physical reality.
• Spatial interactions. The nature, extent, origins, and destinations of the urban movements of passengers and freight. Spatial
interactions take into consideration the attributes of the transport system as well as the land use factors that are generating and
attracting movements. The assumption is that flows between locations are mainly related to a function of spatial impendence,
which reflects the friction of urban space. Many spatial interaction models rely on distance–decay parameters that underline how
each unit of change in the distance influence the intensity of interactions. Another dimension of spatial interactions concerns the
modes involved in urban trips, particularly which mode will be used for which trip.
• Land use. Considers the level of spatial accumulation of activities and their associated levels of mobility requirements. There is
a wide base of spatial economic models aiming at estimating transport demand, mainly through the generation and attraction of
traffic by different land use zones. Land use is commonly linked with demographic and economic attributes.

Figure 3 Transportation/land use interactions.

 Transportation and Land Use 467

Figure 4 The transport/land use system.

A key challenge in research concerns the difficulties of linking a specific mode of transportation with specific land use patterns.
While public transit systems tend to be associated with higher densities of residential and commercial activities and highways
with lower densities, the multiplicity of modes available in urban areas, including freight distribution, conveys an unclear and
complex relationship. Further, land use is commonly subject to zoning restrictions in terms of the type of activities that can be built
as well as their density. Land use dynamics are therefore influenced by planning restrictions.

Urban Land Use Models

The relationships between transportation and land use have been an important area of theoretical discussion within the field of
regional sciences. Since transportation is a distance–decay altering technology, spatial organization is assumed to be strongly influ-
enced by the concepts of location and distance. Several descriptive and analytical models of urban land use have been developed
over time, involving some consideration of the role of transportation.

Early Models

Von Thunen’s regional land use model is the oldest representation based on a central place, the market town, and its concentric
impacts on surrounding land uses. It was initially developed in the early 19th Century (1826) for the analysis of agricultural
land use patterns in Germany. The model used the concept of economic rent to explain a spatial organization where different agri-
cultural activities are competing for the usage of land. The underlying principles of this model have been the foundation of many
others where economic considerations, namely land rent and distance–decay, are incorporated. The core assumption of the model is
that agricultural land use is patterned in the form of concentric circles around a market that consumes all the surplus production,
which must be transported. The closer the market, the higher the intensity and productivity of agricultural land use, such as dairy
products and vegetables, while the further away, less intensive uses, such as grain and livestock, dominate.
Another range of early models, such as Weber’s industrial location model developed in 1909, dealed with industrial location, in
an attempt to minimize the total transportation costs of accessing raw materials and moving the output to the market. The main
principle that early models explored is that locational choice, and the resulting land uses are primarily influenced by transportation
costs. This assumption is not surprising since in the late 19th Century and the early 20th Century; land transportation options were
limited and of relatively high cost.

Concentric, Zonal, and Polycentric Land Uses

The Burgess concentric model published in 1925 was among the first attempts to investigate spatial patterns at the urban level.
Although the purpose of the model was to analyze social classes, it recognized that transportation and mobility were important
factors behind the spatial organization of urban areas. The formal land use representation of this model is derived from commuting
distance from the CBD, creating concentric circles. Each circle represents a specific socioeconomic urban landscape. This model is
conceptually a direct adaptation of the Von Thunen’s model of urban land use since it deals with a concentric representation. This
representation considers a transportation trade-off between the cost of commuting and the cost of renting housing. Therefore, if the
cost of commuting declines due to improvements (e.g., a new transit line), the outcome is that more people can afford to live farther
468 Transportation and Land Use

away, which results in urban sprawl. Even close to one century after the concentric urban model was developed, spatial changes in
cities such as Chicago are still reflective of such a process.
Sector and polycentric land use models were developed to take into account numerous factors overlooked by concentric models,
namely the influence of transport axes discussed by Hoyt, and multiple centers on land use and growth addressed by Harris and
Ullman. Both representations consider the emerging impacts of motorization on the urban spatial structure. Such representations
also identified that transportation infrastructures, particularly terminals such as rail stations or ports, occupy specific locations and
can be considered as land uses.

Hybrid Land Uses

Hybrid models are an attempt to include the concentric, sector, and nuclei behavior of different processes in explaining urban land
use. They try to integrate the strengths of each approach since none of these appear to provide a completely satisfactory explanation.
Thus, hybrid models, such as that developed by Isard, consider the concentric effect of central locations (CBDs and subcenters) and
the radial effect of transport axes, all overlaid to form a land use pattern. Hybrid representations are also suitable to explain the
evolution of the urban spatial structure as they combine different spatial and temporal impacts of transportation on urban land
use, such as the concentric and radial impacts (Fig. 5).
Land rent theory was also developed to explain land use as a result of a market where different urban activities are competing for
land usage at a location. The theory is strongly based on the market principle of spatial competition where actors are bidding to
secure and maintain their presence at a specific location. The more desirable a location is, the higher its rent value. Transportation,
through accessibility and distance–decay, is a strong explanatory factor on the land rent and its impacts on land use; however,
conventional representations of land rent leaning on the concentric paradigm are being challenged by structural modifications
of contemporary cities that are underlined by hybrid models.

Urban Dynamics

Both land use and transportation are part of a dynamic system that is subject to external influences and internal changes. Each
component of the system is constantly evolving due to changes in technology, policy, economics, demographics, and even culture
or values. Since transportation infrastructure and real estate development require significant capital investments, understanding
their dynamics is of high relevance for investors, developers, planners, and policymakers. As a result, the interactions between
land use and transportation are played out as the outcome of the many decisions made by residents, businesses, and governments.
The field of urban dynamics has expanded the scope of conventional land use models, which tended to be descriptive, by trying
to consider the relationships behind the evolution of the urban spatial structure. This focus has led to a complex modeling

Figure 5 The hybrid land use model: Transportation and the formation of urban landscapes.
 Transportation and Land Use 469

Figure 6 Basic urban dynamics.

framework, including a wide variety of components such as the transportation network, housing locations, and workplaces. Among
the concepts supporting urban dynamics are retroactions, whereby changes in one component will influence other associated
components. As these related components change, there is a feedback effect on the initial component, which is either positive or
negative.
Urban dynamics try to evaluate the main components initiating or being affected by changes in an urban area. Among the
numerous factors in urban dynamics, transportation is of high significance as it is often expected that investments in transportation
will have positive economic consequences that may even feedback into future transport investments (Fig. 6). Transport investments
are expected to improve the accessibility of passengers and freight, which in turn will improve the overall performance of a regional
economy. Even if strong associations can be identified between transport improvements and economic (and spatial) changes,
stating causality is conceptually inaccurate. For this reason alone, understanding urban dynamics remains a complex and uncertain
task.
The issue about how to articulate these relations remains, particularly in the current context of interdependency between local,
regional, and global processes. Globalization has substantially blurred the relationships between transportation and land use as
well as its dynamics. The main paradigm is concerned with some factors once endogenous to a regional setting, such as
manufacturing and distribution, have become exogenous. Many economic activities that provide employment and multiplying
effects and that shape land use changes are driven by forces that are global in scope and may have little to do with regional
dynamics. For instance, capital investment in infrastructures and facilities could come from external sources, and the bulk of the
output could be bound to international markets. In such a context, it would be difficult to explain urban development processes
taking place in coastal Chinese cities, such as the Pearl River Delta, since export-oriented strategies are among the most significant
driving forces. Looking at the urban dynamics of such a system from an endogenous perspective would fail to capture driving forces
that are dominantly exogenous. The relationships between transportation and land use that have been the focus of a long line of
geographical representations, including models, are mainly driven by economic, social, and technological changes. It is expected
that ongoing changes related to digitalization, such as e-commerce, and automation in manufacturing and distribution, will
continue to shape the urban spatial structure in the 21st Century.

Further Reading

Cervero, R., 1998. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Gwilliam, K. (Ed.), 2002. Cities on the Move: A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review, Strategy Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Hanson, S., Giuliano, S. (Eds.), 2017. The Geography of Urban Transportation, fourth ed. The Guilford Press, New York.
Harvey, J., 1996. Urban Land Economics. Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Kaplan, D., Wheeler, J., Holloway, S., 2009. Urban Geography, second ed. Wiley, New York.
Litman, T., 2018. Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts: Considering the Impacts, Benefits and Costs of Different Land Use Development Patterns. Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, Victoria, BC.
Marchetti, C., 1994. Anthropological invariants in travel behaviour. Tech. Forecast. Soc. Change 47, 75–78.
McNeil, D., 2017. Global Cities and Urban Theory. SAGE, London.
Mulley, C. (Ed.), 2013. Urban Form and Transport Accessibility. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Newman, P., Kenworthy, J., 1999. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington, DC.