The minimum circuity frontier and the journey to work
People travel between places of residence and work destinations via transportation networks. The relation between selection of home and work locations has been heavily debated in the transportation planning literature. In this paper we use circuity, the ratio of network to Euclidean distance, to better understand the choice of residential location relative to work. This is done using two methods of defining origins and destinations in twenty metropolitan regions in the United States, with more detailed analysis of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon. The first method of selection is based on actual choice of residence and work locations. The second is based on a randomly selected dataset of origins and destinations in the same regions, followed by a comparison between the two methods for these regions. The study shows circuity measured through randomly selected origins and destinations differs from circuity measured from actual origins and destinations. Workers tend to reside in areas such that the journey to work circuity is lower than random, applying intelligence to their location decisions. Consistent with traditional urban economic theory, this suggests locators wish to locate on the frontier with the largest residential lot at the shortest commute time, but in contrast with the classic model which simplifies transportation networks to be uniform, we cannot assume that all possible home-work pairs are on the frontier. This finding, developed from microscopic data not previously used for this question, reveals an important issue related to residence choice and location theory and how resident workers tend to locate with respect to network configuration in an urban context.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mohammad R. Tayyaran & Ata M. Khan & Donald A. Anderson, 2003. "Impact of telecommuting and intelligent transportation systems on residential location choice," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 171-193, April.
- Lothlorien Redmond & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2001.
"The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount,"
Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 179-205, May.
- Redmond, Lothlorien S. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2001. "The Positive Utility of the Commute: Modeling Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute Amount," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4mc291p2, University of California Transportation Center.
- Small, Kenneth A & Song, Shunfeng, 1992. ""Wasteful" Commuting: A Resolution," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(4), pages 888-898, August.
- Small, Kenneth A. & Song, Shunfeng, 1992. ""Wasteful" Commuting: A Resolution," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5142n2ts, University of California Transportation Center.
- Samaniego, Horacio & Moses, Melanie E., 2008. "Cities as Organisms: Allometric Scaling of Urban Road Networks," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 1(1), pages 21-39.
- Clark, William A. V. & Huang, Youqin & Withers, Suzanne, 2003. "Does commuting distance matter?: Commuting tolerance and residential change," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 199-221, March.
- Giuliano, Genevieve, 1991. "Is Jobs-Housing Balance a Transportation Issue?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4874r4hg, University of California Transportation Center.
- Robert F. Love & James G. Morris, 1979. "Mathematical Models of Road Travel Distances," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 130-139, February.
- Cho, Eun Joo & Rodriguez, Daniel & Song, Yan, 2008. "The Role of Employment Subcenters in Residential Location Decisions," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 1(2), pages 121-151.
- Kim, Chansung, 2008. "Commuting time stability: A test of a co-location hypothesis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 524-544, March.
- Genevieve Giuliano & Kenneth A. Small, 1993. "Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 30(9), pages 1485-1500, November.
- Giuliano, Genevieve & Small, Kenneth A., 1993. "Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2ss7x5b1, University of California Transportation Center.
- Wachs, Martin & Taylor, Brian D. & Levine, Ned & Ong, Paul, 1993. "The Changing Commute: A Case Study of the Jobs/Housing Relationship over Time," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7424635r, University of California Transportation Center.
- Ballou, Ronald H. & Rahardja, Handoko & Sakai, Noriaki, 2002. "Selected country circuity factors for road travel distance estimation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 843-848, November. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)