JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPACESYNTAX Archives


SPACESYNTAX Archives

SPACESYNTAX Archives


SPACESYNTAX@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPACESYNTAX Home

SPACESYNTAX Home

SPACESYNTAX  2004

SPACESYNTAX 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: What streets to include in axman

From:

Alain Chiaradia <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 7 May 2004 21:51:38 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

There are different aims at stake; one is explanatory power and theory building the other one is prediction and pragmatic uses, the later with a more technological flavour. Hopefully the former will lead to the latter but that may take a lot of time, but these two strands are not always in synch.

There is a difference between models where independent and dependant variables are kept separated and a model where output variable are used as the input variable. When you mix the two, it becomes a kind of sophisticated trend extrapolations device and surely not quite an explanatory model but a pragmatic one, most useful as such if nothing else is available. 
You can have very convincing animation of water flow that match actual flow but it does not mean that you have an explanatory model - to predict is not the same than to explain (quoting Rene Thom).

From Bill's explanation; the Nantes space syntax multivariable vehicular traffic model includes a managed variable: road width, which play an important role too, in that sense they will be no difficulty to add a dummy variable as part of the managed side of the equation like road pricing and see what happen. 

Andrew - if you get us the data, we are ready to have a go - we would need useable road width data, but that could be easily retrieved from GIS, plus count inside and outside the Congestion Charging Zone, before and after. 
It would require much more work for bus lanes, traffic light phasing, traffic calming. Bus lanes are about car useable road width reduction so lets leave that for much later. Rome was not build in one day. So lets be fair.

"There's little new in the Boston conclusions in the document that was
linked to, earlier. I'd say that it seems to be somewhat behind the
times IMHO. The transport planning profession has known about the
linkages between land use mixture, density and travel demand for over
40 years (not that it's been reflected in policy and action, but
nevertheless the knowledge has been there), and there's been lots of
very good work done in the last 4 decades on describing those
linkages."

Absolutely right, there is nothing new there after 40 years of research. What I was suggesting was that the known linkage (this is again different from explaining how the coupling is occurring apart from a circular gravity model) between density, land use mix, travel demand process changes seems to be better explained and probably quantified from a spatial accessibility process change point of view. Urban form dynamic is a conflict of attractors, and spatial accessibility seems to be an extremely powerful one.
I agree there is understanding - There is a difference between understanding the role of spatial accessibility if that is what you mean by linkage (and what of it) and having a parameter in a model that includes its quantified effect.

"As traffic (or more usefully, general transport) models use
origin/destination matrices, I can't see how one would implement Alan
Penn's suggestion of:  "using space syntax measures ... in the matrix
estimation phase of the construction of traffic models", but am
willing to be enlightened. I'm often agnostic as to the usefulness of
models based on such O/D matrices, but they do have lots of
advantages in terms of being able to inform policy decisions on land
use and transport."


I would agree with you on the usefulness of such model because of all the general 4 steps that traffic model require the origin/destination matrix (the second step which is before mode assignment if I recall correctly) is probably the most difficult to justify objectively. Very recent and long conversations with our friends transport engineers/planners at JMP and  Steer Davies Gleaves led to the admission that this is more a well established and accepted convention protocol than anything they could justify the detail of. And I will go with that. 

Along that line, model will not change if for example TfL is continuing to only accept to support one sort of model. So this is quite an interesting social issue, the institutionalisation of knowledge blocking innovation, not new either (see Kuhn). And so there is little doubt that it would be very difficult to move the transportation-modelling establishment - this is like trying to manoeuvre a super tanker with your little finger, as you said 40 years of worldwide research, hundred of thousands practitioners, billions worth of research and professionals fees. 

There is another aspect of modelling that could be queried when comparing model - if we have competing models, one with few variables and one with many more variable with similar explanatory power, which one should you chose? 

But yes then just for the fair play, we would like to sit down and look at how this is done in the detail and work out with you that probably we have a better alternative that may be then change the usefulness of such models.


_______________________________
 
Alain Chiaradia
Associate Director
 
SPACE SYNTAX
 
_______________________________


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 May 2004 19:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What streets to include in axman

If you'll permit me stepping into the discussion of space syntax and
transport modelling, as a transport modeller / planner with a mere
inkling of space syntax.

In essence, transport models are *pivot* models. A transport model's
utility is in reliably forecasting the *change* from a current
situation that a policy or scheme would have, rather than in
describing the status quo.

So a model that explains 80% of the traffic flows in Central London
(before congestion charging), based on an axial map, will predict no
changes after such road pricing is introduced, as the axial map does
not change. Similarly with bus lanes, traffic light phasing, traffic
calming: all the standard tools of urban traffic management. But
flows have changed significantly ... and a useful transport model
would predict those changes reliably.

 > If we combine the Nantes results ...
> we won't be has puzzled than the
> transport engineer/planner seems to be in
> their conclusions.

There's little new in the Boston conclusions in the document that was
linked to, earlier. I'd say that it seems to be somewhat behind the
times IMHO. The transport planning profession has known about the
linkages between land use mixture, density and travel demand for over
40 years (not that it's been reflected in policy and action, but
nevertheless the knowledge has been there), and there's been lots of
very good work done in the last 4 decades on describing those
linkages.

Total mobility is driven by relative and absolute accessibility of
individual modes, of course, and so a useful network model needs to
have coded within it which modes can use which links.

As traffic (or more usefully, general transport) models use
origin/destination matrices, I can't see how one would implement Alan
Penn's suggestion of:  "using space syntax measures ... in the matrix
estimation phase of the construction of traffic models", but am
willing to be enlightened. I'm often agnostic as to the usefulness of
models based on such O/D matrices, but they do have lots of
advantages in terms of being able to inform policy decisions on land
use and transport.

Andrew Smith

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager