and that ‘access to fixed (or exogeneuos) employment is an important factor in explaining
residential settlement patterns’ (Boarnet 1994, p.80).
A second challenge to the basic monocentric model is the study of actual commuting
behaviour and particular the existence of the so called ‘wasteful’ or ‘excess’ commuting. This
is the difference between the average distance projected by the monocentric model and the
actual average commuting distance. Reason for calling this difference ‘wasteful’ is based on
the -normative- starting point, that it reflects non-optimal spatial behaviour which should be
avoided. However, one could also say that ‘wasteful’ commuting is the commuting distance
which can't be explained by the monocentric model. In this perspective ‘wasteful’ indicates
the ineffeciency of this model. This relates to the question after the degree in which the basic
model explains actual commuting. Although the term ‘wasteful’ is therefore ambiguous, and
even can be misleading, we use it here in this -simplistic- form because it is still central in
urban economic modelling. For several cities, studies after ‘wasteful’ commuting have been
carried out (Hamilton 1982; Cropper & Gordon 1988; White 1991; Small & Song 1992).
This established the shortcoming validness of the propositions of the monocentric urban
model. Moreover, these studies showed that wasteful commuting existed to a large extent.
The present article adresses two questions. The first is to what degree the basic
monocentric model, analysed mainly for the urban systems of the United States, explains
actual commuting behaviour in an European country. Is here also a difference between the
distance calculated on the propositions of the basic model and the actual commuting
distances? This is the question after the extent of wastefulness of commuting. If this is large,
actual commuting behaviour does not fit the assumptions of the basic monocentric model.
The second question is whether, in case much excess commuting exists, the basic
model can be adapted to actual behaviour. It is indeed surprising that, as Gordon & Richardson
(1996a) rightly declare, ‘though much discussed, decentralization trends have not been
satisfactorily modelled (as opposed to being described and interpreted) except as very partial
frameworks’ (p.1730). ‘The strong evidence of progressive decentralization demands more
work on a more relevant model’ (p.1740). In relation to this, the present article analyses two
alternatives of modelling new urban systems (see also Yinger 1992; Henderson & Slade 1993).
The first alternative model starts from a deconcentrated pattern of employment and is based
on the suggestion Hamilton (1982) already made. The supposition of complete concentration
of employment is dropped, and a more equal distribution of employment over the urban
region is supposed. When jobs are decentralized, a reduction of the total of commuter
distances may be achieved. This, however, still within the assumption of the maximization of
utility given the budget limits. Also, the supposition of an exponential reduction in
employment density with increasing distance from the urban centre still holds. According to
this decentralized model the place of work is between the home and the ‘old’ centre. So,
commuter traffic is assumed in the direction of the city centre. This first alternative to the
monocentric model is called the model of ‘deconcentrated employment’.
The second alternative, called the ‘cross-traffic model’, starts from a polynodal urban
system in which a multifarious oriented traffic pattern exists. In this case work sites are not
only more equally distributed over the urban region but the direction of commuter traffic too,
is no longer oriented towards the centre of the urban region or towards work sites in the
direction of the centre. Also, the supposition of the exponential reduction of employment
density as the distance to urban regional centre increases, is dropped. Instead commuters,
because they minimize costs of travel, are supposed to concentrate on jobs in the immediate
surroundings of their residential location. Particular this second alternative model attempts to
model the recent changes in actual urban commuting patterns, as much as possible, within the