Density and dispersion: the co-development of land use and rail in London
This paper examines the changes that occurred in the rail network and density of population in London during the nineteenth and twenti- eth centuries. It aims to disentangle the 'chicken and egg' problem of which came first, network or land development, through a set of statisti- cal analyses using clearly distinguishing events by order. Using a panel of data representing the 33 boroughs of London over each decade from 1871 to 2001, the research finds that there is a positive feedback effect between population density and network density. Additional rail stations (either underground or surface) are positive factors leading to subsequent increases in population in the suburbs of London, while additional popu- lation density is a subsequent factor in deploying more rail. These effects differ in central London, where the additional accessibility produced by rail led to commercial development and led to a depopulation. There are also few differences in the effects associated with surface rail stations and underground stations, as the underground was able to get into central London in a way that surface rail could not. However the two networks were weak (and statistically insignificant) substitutes for each other in the suburbs, but the density of surface rail stations was a complement to the Underground in the center, though not vice versa.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.
Volume (Year): 8 (2008)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
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.:
- Pavithra Parthasarathi & David M. Levinson & Ramachandra Karamalaputi, 2003.
"Induced Demand: A Microscopic Perspective,"
Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(7), pages 1335-1351, June.
- Roger Behrens & Lisa Kane, 2004. "Road capacity change and its impact on traffic in congested networks: evidence and implications," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 587-602.
- David Levinson & Seshasai Kanchi, 2002. "Road Capacity and the Allocation of Time," Working Papers 200203, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
- Rephann, Terance & Isserman, Andrew, 1994. "New highways as economic development tools: An evaluation using quasi-experimental matching methods," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 723-751, December.
- David Levinson & Wei Chen, 2004. "Paving New Ground," Working Papers 200509, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
- David Levinson & Ramachandra Karamalaputi, 2003.
"Induced Supply: A Model of Highway Network Expansion at the Microscopic Level,"
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy,
London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 37(3), pages 297-318, September.
- David Levinson & Ramachandra Karamalaputi, 2003. "Induced Supply: A Model of Highway Network Expansion at the Microscopic Level," Working Papers 200304, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
- David Levinson, 2004. "The Evolution of Transport Networks," Working Papers 200510, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
- Phil Goodwin & Robert Noland, 2003. "Building new roads really does create extra traffic: a response to Prakash et al," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(13), pages 1451-1457.
- Robert Cervero & Mark Hansen, 2002. "Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment: A Simultaneous Equation Analysis," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 36(3), pages 469-490, September.
- Patricia Mokhtarian & Francisco Samaniego & Robert Shumway & Neil Willits, 2002. "Revisiting the notion of induced traffic through a matched-pairs study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 193-220, May.
- Feng Xie & David Levinson, 2007. "The Weakest Link: A Model of the Decline of Surface Transportation Networks," Working Papers 200803, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
- Gramlich, Edward M, 1994. "Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1176-96, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jecgeo:v:8:y:2008:i:1:p:55-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.