Influences of job and household location on commuting distances and travel modes in

urban regionsExperiences from the Copenhagen region and other Nordic urban areas

Petter NæssProfessor in Urban Planning at Aalborg Universitywith part-time positions at Oslo University College and Institute of

Transport Economics

Differences in our approach compared to mainstream research

• Drawing on theories of urban planning, transport geography and mobility sociology, not only transport economics

• Aiming at explaining causal mechanisms by which urban form influences travel

• Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods

• Emphasis on being aware of the basic assumptions of the studies, seen from a philosophy of science perspective

The Copenhagen Metropolitan Area study of relationships between residential location and travel

• Data collection in 29 residential areas

• Quantitative main survey (1932 respondents)

• Follow-up detailed travel diary survey (273 respondents)

• Qualitative interviews with 17 households

• Fairly representative samples, but persons with a high education are overrepresented

Residential location and commuting distances

Rationales for choosing among job locations• Distance limitation (in terms of geographical distance as well

as in terms of travel time), which may be grounded in several considerations: – saving time

– saving money

– bodily constraints, e.g. in one’s fitness for walking and biking

• A wish of being able to choose the best job opportunity (in terms of salary, working conditions, self-realization, etc.)

Conditions contributing to:High priority attached to choosing the best facility:

• Specialized job skills• Few domestic obligations• High mobility resources• Many facilities available in the

local area of the dwelling, enabling residents to choose

• Short distance from the local facilities to the closest competing concentration of facilities

High priority attached to distance minimizing:

• Non-specialized job skills• Many domestic obligations• Low mobility resources• Few facilities available in the

local area of the dwelling, restricting residents’possibilities for choice

• Long distance from the local facilities to the closest competing concentration of facilities

Distance from dwelling to the city center of Frederikshavn (km)

One

-wa

ycom

mu

ting

dis

tance (k

m)

Frederikshavn (pop. 35,000)

A clear center-periphery gradient in commuting distances has also been found found in Oslo, Helsinki, Århus, Hangzhou and a number of other cities worldwide

Residential location and travel modes for journeys to work

Gender differences in the influences of residential location on commuting

A similar pattern was found in Oslo, Norway and in Hangzhou, China

Workplace location and commuting distances

Workplace location and travel modes for journeys to work

Oslo, mainly office workplaces

Similar results found in Copenhagen and Trondheim (strong center-periphery gradient), Århus, Aalborg and Odense (weaker effects)

Are cities doomed to sprawl?Oslo – an example of the opposite

20

25

30

35

40

45

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Year

Pe

rso

ns

pe

r h

ec

tare

of

urb

an

ize

d la

nd

Oslo region

Continuous urban area of Oslo

Municipality of Oslo