Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models

8. Commuting distance in the deconcentrated model of employment

Similar to the concentrated model we illustrate the deconcentrated model again with the
Amsterdam region. Also in this case, with means of a loglinear regression, at first, (C) and (τ)
are calculated:

C     =     ln 11,188,053 = 72262

τ      =      -0.66

Substituting this in the employment density function shows the relation between locations of
employment and the centre of the urban system:

The level of explanation by this model is somewhat higher then in case of basic model, but
still only 19 percent. The total number of jobs (W) is 942,710. By this information and by
using the distance from the centre towards the edge of the system, it is possible to solve
equation (5). For Amsterdam, the average distance of the deconcentrated employment
locations towards the centre is 5.6 km implying that the average distance of commuting can
be reduced to 5.6 km. Table 4 shows, next to Amsterdam, the results for the other urban
regions.

Table 4             Average commuting distance for the four urban regions in

the case of a deconcentrated employment pattern

(Because C and τ are integrated in W(x) they are, as in table 3, not mentioned separate)

Although the difference with the other regions is less, again, the table shows the lowest level
of explanation for the Amsterdam region. In the rank-order of average distance, Rotterdam
and Utrecht changed their position. The table shows again the negative relationship between
C and τ The distance decay function (τ) is, negatively, steeper if C is higher.

18

<<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   >>

More intriguing information