Compuf. Environ. Urbar~ Systems Vol. 7, pp. 197 to 21 I, 1982 019X-9715/82/030197-lS$O3.

00/0
Printed III Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright 0 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd

THE LOWRY MODEL OF LAND USE

SIMULATION AND ITS DERIVATIVES

MEIR GROSS
Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA 01003. U.S.A.

Abstract--The Lowry family of urban land use simulation models is one of the most widely used,
both as an aid in scientific investigation, and as a tool for making predictions concerning growth
and change in the distribution and intensity of land use activities. This paper outlines the
theoretical work and modelling experience which led to the development of the Lowry family of
land use simulation models and sketches the main features of its logical structure. The paper
commences with a discussion of procedural relationships between modelling and planning, focus-
ing upon difficulties which are frequently encountered when predictive models are to be designed
for planning purposes. Next, the paper describes the conceptual foundations of the gravity and
entropy-maximizing models of spatial interaction, followed by an explanation of how the gravity
idea was applied in the Lowry model of urban land use and its successors. Finally, the last section
of the paper is devoted to ITLUP, in which Lowry-type land use models embodying entropy-
maximizing trip functions are linked with a transportation network simulation model.

1. INTRODUCTION

THE DYNAMICprocesses which determine the spatial distribution and intensity of land use
activities in urban regions have been of interest to planners and scientists for some time.
However, only since the development of the computer and related techniques has it
become possible to develop simulation models which spatially represent these processes
and to predict changes in the metropolitan land use patterns.
The use of these models has been steadily increasing in the last three decades and is
currently well established. Thus, planning literature is rich with discussions of: the theor-
etical underpinnings of these models [ 11; their relationship to social science research and
to planning [2]; the state-of-the-art of their development [3]; and their utilization by
various planning agencies [4].
The Lowry family of land use simulation models is perhaps the most widely utilized
for research in urban dynamics as well as policy decision-making, and the purpose of this
paper is to outline the theoretical work and modelling experience from which this family
of models has developed and to sketch the main features of its logical structure.
The paper commences with a discussion of procedural relationships between model-
ling and planning, focusing upon difficulties which are frequently encountered when
predictive models are to be designed for planning purposes. Next, the paper describes the
conceptual foundations of the gravity and entropy-maximizing models of spatial interac-
tion, which is followed by an explanation of how the gravity idea was applied in the
Lowry model of urban land use and its successors. Finally, the last section of the paper is
devoted to ITLUP, in which Lowry-type land use models embodying entropy-maximiz-
ing trip functions are linked with a transportation network simulation model.

2. URBAN PLANNING AND URBAN MODELLING

Britton Harris [2] provides a useful account of the relations between prediction and
the planning process as a whole. He decomposes planning into five types of activity: (a)
determination of the goals to be pursued, (b) design, in which plans relevant to the
desired goals are specified, (c) prediction of the consequences of the plans produced in
stage b, (d) decision, in which the predicted consequences of the various plans are
evaluated against the criteria specified in stage (a), and one plan is chosen as the best

197
198 Mm GROSS

available, and (e) implementation of the chosen plan. Within this general framework,
three major classes of models relevant to urban planning may be distinguished: descrip-
tive models, predictive models, and optimizing models.
A descriptive model
replicate(s) the relevant features of an existing urban environment or of an
already-observed process or urban change. Good descriptive models are of
scientific value because they reveal much about the structure of urban en-
vironments, reducing the apparent complexity of the observed world to the
coherent and vigorous language of mathematical relationships [S, p. 1591.

A predictive model, like a descriptive model, is a statement of theory, and the predic-
tions which it yields may, under some circumstances, be used to test the validity of its
theoretical foundations. The special practical importance of prediction is due to its
position in the main stream of the planning process. Indeed, the main force behind the
development of predictive models has been the desire to understand the consequences
and ramifications of planning proposals.
An optimizing model can be regarded as a logically-complete specification of the
three central stages of the planning process: design. prediction and choice. Clearly the
form of such a model will be determined by the goals to be optimized, and on the
real-world context of the predictive stage. Certain mathematical procedures (e.g. dynamic
programming and branch and bound programming) can in principle be used as frame-
works for planning models under a very wide range of objective functions: but for
planning problems of even moderate size and complexity. the computational times
involved are astronomical, and only a few narrowly-defined types of problems are amen-
able to definitive and efficient solution by optimizing models 161.
Since predictive models are of major concern to the urban and regional planner, it
will be useful to outline some of the principles and considerations governing their design
and development.

2.1 Theoreticul contrnt ofpredictiw ~nodel.s

It is highly desirable that a predictive model should have a convincing explanatory

basis. Harris places special emphasis on this point: “The development of better predic-
tion with respect to the outcomes of plans must be based in the first instance in a sound
understanding of the way in which the system being planned functions and of the way in
which it responds to differential environmental conditions and policy inputs” [6, p. 2761.
In this sense, purely descriptive models, such as the rank-size rule and the negative-
exponential density gradient, are “conceptually incomplete, and thus incapable of sus-
taining new predictions” [6, p. 2761. But it is worth noting that some important social-
science theories-such as the urban geographers’ gravity model-did not find convincing
interpretation until many years after their initial formulation.

2.2 Modelliny in practicr

In designing (or selecting) a predictive model we need to consider the purposes for
which it is intended. In particular, a model which is to be used in a planning context
must be sensitive to the kinds of planning proposals which we wish to test, and it must be
capable of predicting the kinds of outcomes which have a bearing on our planning goals.
There may be a considerable degree of conflict between these practical requirements and
the theoretical objectives outlined above. Lowry observes:

The virtuosity of the theorist lies in rigorous logical derivation of interesting

and empirically relevant propositions from the most parsimonious set of pos-
tulates. The model-builder, on the other hand, is concerned with the appli-
cation of theories to a concrete case, with the aim of generating empirically-
relevant output from empirically-based input. The exigencies of his trade are
such that even given his high appreciation of ‘theory’. his model is likely to
 The Lowry model of land use simulation 199

reflect its theoretical origins only in oblique and approximate ways. Mechan-
isms that work, however mysteriously, get substituted for those whose virtue
lies in theoretical elegance [IS, p. 1601.

This conflict between theoretical elegance and practical exigency is evident in the
problem of verification. Theories of urban processes are almost always tested by statisti-
cal methods rather than by direct experiment, and statistical tests of urban models are
often run with the data sets to which the models were fitted in the first place [see, for
example. 5, p. 1641. Again, it must be emphasized that empirical validity is rarely the
primary objective of urban modelling:

From the point of view of the planning practitioner, models must purport to
reflect an established theory and the hypothesis testing which might proceed
consists of hypotheses about the viability of plans rather than hypotheses
about the realism of the theory.. Some failures of modelling . . can be
traced to the fact that the theories behind the models were never fully tested,
and in some cases, have not even been well formulated [6, pp. 257-2581.

The scheme by which the urban system is to be decomposed into elements, and the
treatment of time. have critical bearing on the theoretical structure of any predictive
model.
Decomposition (or taxonomy) involves problems of aggregation and data availability.
In predicting residential location, for example, the best course from a theoretical point of
view would be to model the behavior of every actor in the housing market: in such a
micro-model, aggregation would be withheld until the very end of the computational
process; but normally the only available data (e.g. census data) is already in aggregate
form, and even in an ostensibly micro-formulation, we are driven to rather gross simplifi-
cations (e.g. treating census tracts, income groups and major industry groupings as
internally homogeneous) [7]. In fact, many residential models operate explicitly at rather
high levels of aggregation. For example, in DRAM (the residential allocation portion of
ITLUP: see Section 6.1) employees initially aggregated into II work-place zones are
assigned to the n2 work-to-home trip routes, and then re-aggregated as members of
households in the II residential zones. For planning purposes, an aggregative approach
will often be quite adequate, and in the maximum entropy formulation (see Section 3) it
can be defended on theoretical grounds, as indicated by Wilson: “Systems described on
large aggregate scales often behave in a more deterministic, less probabilistic way” [g, p.
2601.
Wilson [S] distinguishes three ways of dealing with time: implicitly: explicitly and
discretely; explicitly and continuously. In the first case, the system is treated as if under
exogenously determined curcumstances (e.g. policy variables and aggregate control
totals) it will proceed in one step from its present state to an equilibrium state, from
which it can be disturbed only by changes in the exogenous variables. In most Lowry
and inputtoutput models the one step is accomplished by a series of computational steps
which converge upon the equilibrium state, but these intermediate steps do not have a
clear theoretical interpretation (see Section on the Lowry Model).
In the second case, “time is treated as a discrete variable, and the model is expressed
in terms of difference equations” [8, p. 2601. For example, in INTRA-II or in IPLUM
(see Section 5) the operative variables are changes in the magnitude of the various input
and output variables, with the changes taken as increments across the (5-year) time
period over which the model is calibrated [9].
In the third case (continuous time), the model would be written in terms of differential
equations, but data limitations and problems of parameter estimation apparently have
precluded the development of urban models of this kind [S, p. 2601.
200 MEIR Gloss

3. THE GRAVITY AND ENTROPY MODELS

The gravity model of spatial interaction and the entropy-maximizing form of this
model are of considerable theoretical interest, and they are embodied in the most widely
used models developed for research and planning, the most recent of which is ITLUP,
which will be discussed later.
The gravity and potential models of urban processes originated in a loose analogy
with Newtonian mechanics: “The traditional gravity model is based on the assumption
that the interaction between two masses varies directly with the product of the masses
and inversely with some measure of the spatial interaction or cost between the two
masses” [ 1, p. 353.
Thus, a simple gravity model has the form
Tj = P&Wjf(Cij) (1)
where

Tj = the number of trips originating in zone i and terminating in zone j

&, Wj = measures of the masses of zone i and zone ,j
P = a constant of proportionality
f(cij) = an inverse function of interaction cost between zone i and zonej and typically

f(Cij) = Cyj (2)

where

cij = a measure of cost of travel from zone i to zone ,j

CI = a parameter of the system under consideration.

In this form the gravity model can be treated as a regression equation, whose parameters
P and c( can be estimated after taking the logarithms of both sides.
Still following the Newtonian analogy, Oi can be substituted for M/;, and Dj can be
substituted for Wj, where Oi is defined as the number of trip-orgins in zone i and Dj is
defined as the number of trip-destinations in zone j. We write these definitions as a pair
of constraints:

1 qj = Oi origin (or production) constraint (3)

j
1 Tj = Dj destination (or attraction) constraint. (4)
I
To ensure that these constraints will be satisfied, we combine them with equation (1)
obtaining
qj = AiBjOiDjf(Cij) (5)
where

Ai = a scaling factor to ensure that the production constraint is satisfied

Bj = a scaling factor to ensure that the attraction constraint is satisfied

and

1
-1
(6)

(7)

Alan Wilson [lo] has shown that equation (5) can be obtained by an application of
the statistical concept of entropy (or uncertainty) without recourse to the Newtonian
analogy. Senior [ 11) and Cesario [12] give an illuminating account of the principles
embodied in the entropy-maximizing procedure. A summary of their exposition is
presented here taking for illustration a system in which the ~j are journeys to work.
 The Lowry model of land use simulation 201

Macrostate I Macrostate 2

o=zone
3
II

4
Fig. 1. System macrostates.

(1) A state of a system is defined as a description of travel behavior in the system, at a

given level of detail. Three major levels of description for a system of journey-to-work
travel behavior can be distinguished:
(a) Microstates, in which the travel behavior of every actor in the system is described.
This level can be represented as a three-dimensional matrix [xfj] where _xfj = 1 if trip-
maker k resides in zone i and works in zone j,

= 0 otherwise.

(b) At the mesostate level, the system is represented as a matrix [Tj] of interzonal
work-trip frequencies. A mesostate can be obtained by aggregation from a given micros-
tate:
~j = C ~~j. (8)
k

(c) At the macrostate level the system is represented as a vector of residences [Oil
and a vector of places of employment [DJ. A macrostate can be obtained by aggregation
from a given microstate:
as before, Oi = C ~j (3)

and Dj = 1 ~j, (4)

1

(2) Given a microstate description of a system, only one mesostate is possible, and
given a mesostate description, only one macrostate is possible: in both cases the higher
level description can be found by simple summation [see equations (8), (3) and (4)].
However, proceeding downwards in a similar fashion is not possible since each macro-
state describes a set of possible mesostates, and each mesostate describes a set of possible
microstates. This is illustrated in the following example of a three-zone system for which
4 7 ~j = 21 (Fig. 1).

Each macrostate may arise in a number of ways, e.g. the mesostates of macrostate 1
include the two shown in Fig. 2. Furthermore, each mesostate may arise in a number of
ways. For example, the microstates of mesostate 1.1 include the two shown in Fig. 3.
Thus it is not possible to proceed in a deterministic fashion from a macrostate descrip-
tion to a mesostate description, or from a mesostate description to a microstate descrip-
tion.
(3) In addition to the production and attraction constraints (equations 3 and 4), a cost
constant is specified :
11 Tjcij = k (9)
1 i

where k = the total travel cost in the system.

202 MEIR GROSS

Mesostate I. I Mesostate 1.2

Fig. 2. System mesostates.

The necessity for this third constraint is evident if the two systems S, and SZ, which
are identical with respect to [Cij], [Oi] and [Dj] are compared. If tripmakers in S, tend
to travel greater distances than tripmakers in S,, then K, > K, and the trip distributions
[Tj], and [qj]z will differ.
(4) The maximum-entropy approach proceeds from a macrostate description to a
mesostate description in a probabilistic fashion. Two assumptions are required: first, that
all microstates are assumed to be equally probable and second, that the most likely
mesostate or macrostate is assumed to be the one with the greatest number of possible
microstates.
In other words, the most probable trip distribution is the trip matrix [~j] which can
occur in the greatest number of ways W([Tj]). It can be shown by combinatorial
theory [ 13) that

where

T = C Oi = C Oj = C C 7i‘j.
i .i 1 j
The mathematical problem, then, is to maximize W([~j]) as specified in equation (10)
subject to the constraints expressed in equations (3) (4) and (9). Wilson’s procedure
for solving this problem [14, Chap. 21 involves the use of Lagrangian multipliers, and
leads to

(11)
where

-1
Bj =
(ic A,Oi em@fJ (13)

Microstote I.l.1 Microstate 1.1.2

Fig. 3. System microstates.

 The Lowry model of land use simulation 203

b = a parameter of the system, whose magnitude reflects the magnitude of the total
interaction cost K [equation (9)]. If K is large, /II is small, and vice versa.

(5) Two important variations on equation (11) can be derived on similar lines. First,
given [Dj] but not CO,], the origins constraint [equation (3)] can be deleted. Then
defining Wi as a measure of the benefits deriving from residential location in zone i, we
obtain a destinations-constrained model,
7Yj = BjDjW~e~@~J work-trip distribution (14)
Oi = 1 BjDjW! em flcLJ residential location (15)
j
where

(16)

and 7 = a parameter of the system, whose magnitude reflects the magnitude of total
residential location-dependent benefits in the system.

Second, given [O,] but not [Dj], the destinations constraint [equation (4)] can be
deleted. Then. defining Wj as a measure of benefits deriving from employment in zone .j,
an origins-constrained model is obtained,
Tj = AiOiW~e-fl’~I work-trip distribution (17)
Dj = 1 AiOiWye-@“J employment location (18)

where

(19)

and 0 = a parameter of the system, whose magnitude reflects the magnitude of total
location-dependent employment benefits in the system.

3.1 Application of the entropy-nlaximizing procedure

The Lowry model and its immediate successors used aggregate production-con-
strained and attraction-constrained versions of the gravity model, while ITLUP and
other recently developed Lowry type models embody extended versions of the entropy-
maximizing formulations expressed in equations 14, 15, 17 and 18. The remainder of the
paper is devoted to these models.
It should be noted also that the entropy-maximizing approach is consistent with
several alternative theoretical constructs. Several models have been constructed on the
premise that interaction between two locations i and j is an inverse function of the
number of alternative opportunities ‘intervening’ between i and j (see for example the
Stouffer and Schneider models described in Swerdloff and Stowers [ 151, and the Lath-
ropHamburg model [ 161). Wilson [ 141 shows that an intervening-opportunity model of
this kind can be regarded as a special case of an entropy model. The maximum entropy
theory is also closely related to the microeconomic theory of transportation-cost mini-
mizing behavior, and to the associated transportation problem of linear program-
ming [3].

4. THE LOWRY MODEL

Ira S. Lowry’s Pittsburgh Model [17] combined economic base theory with the grav-
ity treatment of spatial interaction. Because of the strong influence the Pittsburgh Model
has had on subsequent urban simulation efforts, it will be described in some detail.
Urban land uses are divided into three major categories:

(a) Employment in basic industries, such as steel mills, wholesale trade, and federal
government offices. These industries are regarded as the prime generators of all other
204 MEIR GROSS

urban activities; in particular, their locational distribution within the metropolitan area
is considered to be independent of the markets for their outputs.
(b) Employment in service industries. This category encompasses all non-basic indus-
tries, and is disaggregated into various categories (e.g. retail trade, education, entertain-
ment, professional services). The locational distribution of service industries within the
metropolitan area is considered to be directly dependent upon the intra-metropolitan
final demand for their outputs.
(c) Residentiul land use. It is assumed that the location of residential population
depends directly upon accessibility to places of employment, and indirectly upon accessi-
bility to service establishments.

The model locates these land-uses in sub-metropolitan grid-square zones of equal

area. Apparently the grid-square arrangement was due mainly to technical peculiarities
of the computational scheme used in solving the gravity equations. The first adequate
treatment of heterogeneous zone patterns seems to be that embodied in PLUM (see
Section 5). Spatial interaction between land uses is divided implicitly into two main
categories: employees’ journeys from places of residence to places of employment, and
shopping trips, i.e. journeys to obtain non-basic services. These trips are assumed to
comprise trips originating from homes and trips originating from workplaces. Note that
the work-to-service trips are assumed to be intrazonal (for the sake of clarity they are
omitted from the account of the model’s operation given below).
Operation of the model commences with a pregiven spatial distribution of basic
employment.

(la) A destinations-constrained version of the gravity model is applied to the distribu-

tion of basic employment [Dj], allocating the basic employees to their places of residence
Coil.
(1 b) By treating the resident basic employees as heads of households. the model
calculates the distribution of residential population dependent upon basic industry. This
calculation assumes a simple proportional relationship between resident employees and
resident population.
(2a) By means of an origins-constrained version of the gravity model, the distribution
of the customer population [O,] estimated in the previous step is allocated to a spatial
distribution of demand for non-basic services [Dj].
(2b) The work-place distribution of service employees serving the customers allocated
in (2a) is estimated, assuming a proportional relationship between number of customers
and number of service employees.
(3a) The service employees forecast in (2b) above are allocated to residential zones via
a destinations-constrained gravity model, as in (la) above.
(3b) The resident service employees are converted to new resident population, as in
(1 b) above.
(4) Steps (2) and (3) are reiterated until the increment of service employment allocated
in step (2b) becomes negligible (for further detail see [l, pp. 63-64; 18, pp. 1099118]).

Superimposed on this basic structure are three constraints:

(a) A minimum size constraint on service employment allocated to each zone. This
constraint is different for each service sector, and corresponds with the threshold size of
service establishments in central place theory.
(b) An available-space constraint on retail development: retail employment is allo-
cated only to zones in which there is vacant land available for development.
(c) A maximum-density constraint on residential population in each zone. This con-
straint can be varied to correspond with different density ordinances in different zones.

A building-density and land-utilization accounting procedure provides the infor-

mation required to enforce the second and third constraints. When any one of the three
 The Lowry model of land use simulation 205

constraints applies, the service employment or residential population which would have
been allocated to the zone in question is allocated elsewhere.
Finally. it should be noted that the Lowry model requires an activity rate to convert
resident employees to resident population, and service ratios to convert customers to
employees in the various non-basic sectors. These rates imply (and can be derived from)
exogenous control totals for residential population and for non-basic employment by
sector [ 19, pp. 225-2261.

4.1 Theoretical aspects of the Lowry model

The correspondence between the model’s solution procedure and real-world processes
was at best a correspondence of broad structural features. Lowry made this quite clear:
The model as presented.. . and as actually programmed has no time
dimension. Its iteration sequences are simply convenient substitutes for an
analytical solution; they generate an instant metropolis [ 17, p. 551.

Some progress has been made towards overcoming these theoretical deficiencies.
TOMM and other successors of the Lowry model incorporate comparative-static treat-
ments of time-using difference equations rather than Lowry’s timeless generative equa-
tions-while retaining Lowry’s iterative solution procedure (see next section). The formal
properties of the solution procedure were clarified in 1966 by Robert A. Garin [20], who
“demonstrated that the iterative process used by Lowry.. . could be replaced by elemen-
tary matrix operations to obtain an exact rather than an approximate solu-
tion” 121, p. 1031.

5. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWRY MODEL FRAMEWORK

The series of land use models developed in the United States during the period
1964-1969 can be seen as a continued effort to bring the Lowry model framework into
closer accordance with real-world conditions. The major American modelling efforts
were TOMM, BASS and PLUM.
Crecine’s TOMM [22] was an extension of Lowry’s work in Pittsburgh. The main
differences between TOMM and the Lowry model are described by Putman:

First, and most important, was the fact that TOMM was an incremental
model rather than an ‘instant-metropolis’ model. In the TOMM model, which
was intended for projection purposes, the base year distributions of all activi-
ties are included as determinants of the projection year’s distribution of activi-
ties. The essential notion here is that, in contradistinction to the original
Lowry model, not all households nor all ‘non-basic’ employment is ‘free’ to
move in any given projection period, e.g. 5 or 10 years.. . . Second, rather than
treating population as homogeneous, the TOMM model disaggregates popu-
lation into several types. The third important difference between TOMM and
Lowry is that.. . TOMM uses a measure of amenities, albeit very much sim-
plified, to determine the [spatial] distribution of household types [7].
Goldner and Greybeal’s BASS [23], and Goldner’s PLUM [9] were both developed
for the San Francisco Bay Area Simulation Study. The BASS residential submodel
incorporates an explicit treatment of housing supply and its relations with housing
demand :

(a) Housing is divided into two major types, single-family and multiple-family, and
each type is subdivided into three income-group categories [24]. The computation of
potential housing supply by category and zone involves measures of existing housing
stock, existing residential density, developable land and land slope in each zone. The
measures of developable land and existing stock are pre-adjusted to simulate the process
whereby dwelling units ‘filter’ down to successively lower income groups as they age until
finally they become obsolete and are demolished.
206 MEIRGROSS

(b) Housing demand in each zone is obtained as the product of potential supply and a
gravity-type measure of accessibility to places of employment.
(c) Each zone is allocated its demanded quantity of housing, subject to a constraint
which prevents the supplied quantity from exceeding the supply potential
(d) Finally, excess demand is aggregated and then reallocated to zones in which the
supply potential was not filled on the first allocation.

The most significant feature of PLUM is its treatment of spatial interaction. Instead
of the accessibility potential equations used in earlier models, PLUM estimates the trip
matrix [qj] before aggregating to origins or destinations. The accessibtlity measure used
in the estimation of [xj] incorporates travel cost [Cfj] and two parameters, in a form
which anticipates in some respects the Tanner function used in DRAM and EMPAL (see
Section 6.2). The matrix of zone-to-zone travel costs [cij] is obtained as the matrix of
travel-time in the base-year transportation network. rather than direct airline distances.
This is a major step towards the interactive treatment of transportation and travel cost
embodied in ITLUP.
A late version of PLUM, called IPLUM, had a discrete-dynamic formulation: “The
basic employment inputs are in the form of changes from the base year to the projection
year and all the projected allocations are in terms of changes from the base
year” [25, p. 1953. IPLUM was the land-use model used in early versions of ITLUP. but
the incremental formulation has since been abandoned.
To most American planners and funding agencies these models were a major disap-
pointment. In all three cases, calibration was done mainly by trial and error, and only
one model (PLUM) was used directly to make forecasts in a planning context; but
several English researchers were taking serious interest in the work of their transatlantic
colleagues. Wilson published his entropy derivation of the gravity model in 1967 and a
number of Lowry-derivative models were developed for and applied to British town-
planning situations during the late 1960s and early 197Os, with special attention to the
calibration problems and the formulation of the travel-cost function f(C,j). The fruit of
this English work was to play a critical part in the development and refinement of
ITLUP.

6. INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PACKAGE-ITLIJP

In the period of extensive suburban growth and highway construction, 19504970,
transportation planning and land use planning had been carried on as separate activities,
with little attention to the relations between transportation and land use processes.
Urban highways were built to meet existing travel demand, without consideration of the
new residential development-hence additional traffic-they would foster. Traffic from
the new suburbs clogged the highways almost as soon as they were opened, and since
highway construction was the accepted method of reducing traffic congestion, the result
was a vicious circle which exacerbated the process of suburban sprawl with little or no
improvement in intra-metropolitan travel amenities. Land use planners, on the other
hand, had no reliable means of predicting the effects of zoning controls upon travel
patterns.
The Integrated Transportation and Land Use Package (ITLUP) is one of the model-
ling systems that has been designed to provide the types of information which will be
necessary to remedy this situation. ITLUP has been developed at the University of
Pennsylvania under the direction of Dr S. H. Putman. It has been tested internationally
on several cities [26-281 and has proven a sensitive instrument for investigating many
kinds of planning proposals.

6.1 Structuw and opmrtiorl of ITLUP

ITLUP explicitly simulates the main causal linkages between transportation and land
use processes. Land use is modeled in a Lowry-type duo of gravity models: a Disaggre-
gated Residential Allocation Model (DRAM), and an Employment Allocation Model
 The Lowry model of land use simulation 207

(EMPAL). These models were based originally on IPLUM (see Section 5) but they have
since been substantially modified in light of Wilson’s entropy theory. The transportation
models are adapted from models distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
To simulate the interactions which connect land use processes with transportation pro-
cesses, the models are run in succession: the outputs from the land use models are input
to the transportation models, the consequent transportation forecasts are then input to
the land use models, etc.
The present set-up of ITLUP for a single forecast period is a simple concatenation of
EMPAL, DRAM and the network package.
(la) Given the base-year travel-cost matrix [cij] and the base-year spatial distribu-
tions of employment and residential population, EMPAL estimates the forecast-year
distribution of employment, disaggregated by industrial sector.
(1 b) DRAM estimates the forecast-year distribution of residential population corre-
sponding with the distribution of employment forecast in EMPAL. The forecast-year
travel matrix [Tj] implicit in this step is extracted for input to the network package.
(2) The forecast-year travel matrix [Tj] is converted from person-trips to vehicle-
trips, and loaded onto the forecast-year transportation network. This step models the
effects of traffic congestion upon traffic patterns, and produces forecasts of traffic volume
and congested impedence for every link in the network.

Travel-cost and traffic-volume appear as variables in the land-use models and in the
network models. At each interface between the land-use package and the netowrk pack-
age, certain conversions are necessary, due to changes in the definition of the variables.
These changes in definition are a consequence of the distinction between the quasi-
network of zone centroids (in the land use models), and the actual transportation
network (in the network models). Thus, the link-impedences of the transportation
network are converted to inter-zonal travel costs [cij], and the inter-zonal travel matrix
[Tj] is converted to network traffic volumes in the network models.
The time-interval for which EMPAL has been calibrated (typically 5 years) deter-
mines the time period between base year and forecast year over which ITLUP is to be
run. EMPAL requires exogenous forecasts of total regional employment in the various
industrial sectors, while DRAM requires exogenous forecasts of total regional population
in the various household income groups and an exogenous future-year transportation
network (i.e. the existing network is modified by any transportation policy proposals to
be tested).
Obviously, the forecasting procedure outlined above can be repeated over successive
time periods. The land use forecasts produced for the first forecast date (t + 1) become
base year inputs for the second forecast period (t + 2), etc., subject to exogenous controls
for each forecast date, as outlined in the previous paragraph. Reiteration of ITLUP in
this manner produces cumulative endogenous changes in all location-specific variables,
and in the matrix of inter-zonal travel costs. In particular:
(a) Associated with DRAM and EMPAL there is an accounting system which updates
the various attractiveness factors (e.g. land utilization and building density) in accordance
with the forecast changes in residential and employment location.
(b) Upon completion of the network simulation stage, the congested network impe-
dences are converted to inter-zonal travel costs [cij] for input to EMPAL.
It should be noted that in contrast to the classical Lowry model framework, EMPAL
and DRAM are functionally separable. They are calibrated separately and can be run
separately. This is a very convenient arrangement, and involves abandonment of the
iterative computational schemes used in earlier models. It was adopted after a series of
tests had shown that
the best estimate of a future year is produced after the first iteration of the
solution procedure. If the solution process is continued for further iterations,
until an equilibrium is reached, the resulting solution is a less accurate fore-
cast of the future year [29, pp. 30-311.
208 MEIR GROSS

This result is consistent with the idea that the “system being modelled.. at any given
moment is not in, but tending towards, an equilibrium” [29, p. 311.
EMPAL uses a single equation structure to forecast all sectors of employment, with
no primary distinction between basic and non-basic industry. The equation has the form

(20)

where

Ejk,t + I =
sector k employment in zone j at time t + 1 (forecast year)
Ejk,t =
sector k employment in zone j at time t (base year)
N,,, =
population residing in zone i at time t
Wj, Xj =
measures of the attractiveness of zone j for industrial location
Wj =
E;,t in the current formulation, representing agglomeration and scale
economies
Xj = land area of zone ,j
f(cij) = a function of travel cost, and
uk, h,, dk = parameters to be estimated for each industrial sector k.

The first part of equation (20) is an origins-constrained entropy-maximizing

formulation. It can be interpreted as the market-sensitive portion of EMPAL, reflecting
the effects of the spatial distributions of labor supply and customers upon industrial
location. In the second part of the equation, the Ejk,t can be interpreted as a measure of
locational inertia due to capital already invested in sector k in zone j.
The allocation equation in DRAM is an extended destinations-constrained entropy-
maximizing model. The disaggregated (trips) form is:

(21)

where

the number of work-trips from residences in zone i to places of

employment in zone j, made by members of income group k
E; = the number of members of income group k employed in zone ,j
wy, xi, yi, zi = measures of the residential attractiveness of zone i
Wf? zz the percentage of total households in zone i which are of income
group y. This is a measure of socio-economic attractiveness, income-
group discrimination, housing cost, etc.
xi = the area of available developable land in zone i. This is a measure of
potential for new residential development
Y(= the percentage of developable land in zone i which has been
developed. This is a measure of existing infrastructure
zi = residential density in zone i. This is a measure of housing type
a function of travel cost, and
parameters to be estimated. For each income group, II values of LIZ
must be estimated, where rz is the number of income groups. Typically
n = 4.

6.2 The travel-cost function in DRAM und EMPAL

DRAM and EMPAL embody a travel-cost function, f(cij), which may be interpreted
as a measure of the probability of a trip of length cij, since the models are scaled (see
equations 20 and 21). In both models, f(cij) is the Tanner function,

(22)
 The Lowry model of land use simulation 209

Opportunity function Deterrence function The Tanner function

c/
e-P”i/

L Cj

Fig. 4. Travel-cost functions (source: [7]).

f (c,, )

where

eij = a measure of the cost of travel (e.g. distance) from zone i to zone j, and
z(, fl = parameters to be estimated. These parameters are subscripted by employment
sector (in EMPAL), or by income group (in DRAM).

Where (as is normally the case) M and p are both positive, this function may be inter-
preted as the product of an ‘opportunities’ Factor with a ‘deterrence’ factor:

cyj may be regarded as a measure of increasing opportunities for trip satisfaction

provided by increasing travel distance, and
em Bcl~may be regarded as a measure of the deterrent effect of increasing distance upon
propensity to travel.

The separate components and the combined Tanner function are plotted in Fig. 4. The
combined function usually shows a tendency for people to reside ‘close’ to their place of
employment, but ‘not too close’.

6.3 Calihrution of DRAM und EMPAL

Maximum-entropy equations are not amenable to ordinary least-squares regression
since they cannot be reduced to a linear or polynomial form (see Section 3). fn fact, until
the development of a calibration procedure for DRAM no adequate methods of par-
ameter estimation had existed. Thus CALIB, the gradient-search calibration procedure
designed for DRAM, and subsequently applied also to EMPAL, has been one of the
most significant outcomes of the work on ITLUP [26,27,30].
The aim of a calibration procedure is to find the set of equation parameters which
correspond with the m~~ximum value of a goodness-of-fit criterion. Thinking of the
criterion function as a surface in (n + 1) dimensional space, where n is the number of
parameters to be estimated, the calibration problem is to find the ‘highest point’ of the
surface. The gradient search algorithm proceeds from a pregiven starting point on the
surface to a ‘hilltop’ by a path of steepest ascent. The procedure is as follows:

(a) Definition of a criterion function to be maximized.

(b} Definition of the partial derivatives of the criterion function with respect to each
of the parameters.
(c) Selection of a starting point (parameters) and calculation of the criterion and the
derivatives. hence the gradient, at that point.
(d) Alteration of the parameters as a function of the calculated derivatives and
gradient, and iteration through steps (a) and (b) until a.. . maximum has been
reached [3 1, p. 201.

Several procedural considerations are peculiar to this method of calibration:

(a) If (as is the case with DRAM and EMPAL) it is suspected that there may be more
than one ‘hill’ in the solution space, a rational strategy for finding a high hill-top will
210 MEIRGROSS

involve running the procedure several times from different starting points (see for
example Harris [6, pp. 93-961).
(b) The criterion currently used in calibrating DRAM and EMPAL is maximum
likelihood. This criterion seems to be more efficient-steeper slopes, sharper peaks-than
the coefficient of determination r2.
(c) DRAM and EMPAL can be written in disaggregate form, with Tj as the depen-
dent variable, or aggregate form, with

1 ~j (in DRAM) or 1 ~j (in EMPAL)

j I
as the dependent variable. Although there is reason to expect that calibration of the
disaggregated forms would yield more accurate equation parameters, in American
practice only the aggregated forms are calibrated. due to the poor quality of available
data for [Tj].

6.4 The trunsportation models package

The transportation models package assigns interzonal travel demand [Tj] to the
load nodes of the transportation network, loads the internodal travel demand onto the
network itself, and finally calculates a matrix of interzonal travel costs [cij].
The loading of travel demand onto the network is done by a method called the
incremental tree-by-tree trip assignment technique [32]. This involves the assignment of
traffic to shortest (i.e. least-cost) paths through the network, in several increments. Typi-
cally the loading is done in three increments, the successive increments being 40, 40 and
20% of internodal travel demand.

(a) The first increment is assigned to shortest paths through the initially empty
network, one trip-origin-node-based ‘tree’ at a time. Increasing levels of traffic congestion
due to the assigned traffic are modeled as successive changes in the link-impedance
matrix which describes the network. The impedance function is

I:, = I,( 1 + y( V,/k)“) (23)

where

Zk = the impedance of link 1~ modified by congestion,

I, = the free-flow impedance of link nz,
V, = the total volume of traffic assigned to link 111,
c = the traffic capacity of link tn,
y,u = constants, and typically 7 = 0.15 and u = 4.0.

(b) The second and third increments of traffic are assigned to shortest paths, as in step
(a).
The cumulative modification of the impedance matrix permits traffic to take alterna-
tive routes around links which have become heavily congested, and reduces the distor-
tion due to the all-or-nothing (shortest-path) method of route-tracing. Bias due to the
arbitrary sequencing of trees is minimized by the division of traffic into several incre-
ments. Tests indicate that this method is the most efficient trip-assignment procedure
available [32].

7. CONCLUSION
This paper attempted to briefly sketch the historical development of the Lowry family
of land use models and to outline the main features of its logical structure. The paper
concluded with a description of a Lowry-based modelling package which simulates the
joint interaction of congestion and location and thus assists in determining policies by
which a stable pattern of growth and highway utilization could be predicted. Recent
developments suggest that packages such as ITLUP can constitute the basic elements of
a comprehensive planning tool which planners could use to investigate a wide range of
 The Lowry model of land use simulation 211

urban phenomena. Thus, such systems have been proposed and tested for analyzing the
impact of public policies on air quality, water quality and energy consumption, and for
environmental quality management (see for example [33-361). The utilization of these
systems should yield substantial improvements in planning intelligence.

REFERENCES
I. Batty M. C’rhun luode/liny, Algorirhms, Calihrufion, Predicrims. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1976).
2. Harris B. The Limits of Science and Humanism in Planning, J. Am. Inst. Plamers 33. 324- 335 (1967).
3. Putman S. H. The Integrated Forecasting of Transportation and Land Use. Enwyry Trmsportc~fim
Plaminy Methods, W. F. Brown (Ed.). Department of Transportation, Washington. D.C. Report DOT-
RSPA-DPB-50-78-2 (1978).
4. Pack J. R. The Use of Urban Models: Report on a Survey of Planning Organizations. J. Am. Inst. Pkmzers
41, 191-199 (1975).
5. Lowry I. S. A Short Course in Model Design, J. Ani. Insr. Plumrrs 31, 158X166 (1965).
6. Harris B. A Paradigm for Planning, Typescript, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA (197X).
7. Putman S. H. L’rhun Residmtiul Location Models: Em~lurion und Deceloprnr~~t, Studies in Applied Regional
Science, Martinus Nijhoff. The Hague (1978).
8. Wilson A. G. Models in Urban Planning: A Synoptic Review of Recent Literature. Urhurl Sttrdirs 5.
154-165 (1968).
9. Goldner W. Projecfiw Land Use Model (PLUM), Technical Report No. 219. Bay Area Transportation
Study Commission, Berkeley, CA (1968).
IO. Wilson A. G. A Statistical Theory of Spatial Distribution Models, Trumportution Rra. 1, 2533269 (1967).
I I. Senior M. S. Approaches to Residential Location Modelling I : Urban Ecological and Spatial Interaction
Models (A Review), Enrironmenf and Plunniny A 5, 1655197 (1973).
12. Cesario F. J. A Primer on Entropy Modeling, J. Ant. Insr. Pluwws 41. 4&48 (1975).
13. Fraser D. A. S. Srutistics. An fnfroduction, Wiley, New York (195X).
14. Wilson A. G. Enrropy irt Urbuw md Regional Planni~~y, Pion, London (1970).
15. Swerdloff C. N. and Stowers J. R. A Test of Some First Generation Residential Land Use Models. Niqh\cuj
Rex Rec. U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. Washington, D.C. (1966).
16. Lathrop G. T., Hamburg J. R. and Young G. F. Opportunity Accessibility Model for Allocating Regional
Growth. ffi~qhwuy Rrs. Rec. 102 (1965).
17. Lowry I. S. A Model c~f the Metropolis, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. RM-4035.RC (1964).
IX. Masser I. Anrrl~~ticul Modrl.s.for Urban and Rryionul Pluminy, Wiley, New York (1972).
19. Wilson A. G. Urban and Rrgionul Models ijz Geoyruph!, arId PIumzimJ, Wiley. London (1974).
20. Garin R. A. A Matrix Formulation of the Lowry Model for Intrametropolitan Activity Allocation, J. .41n.
Insr. Plawwrs 32, 36 I-364 (I 966).
21. Goldner W. The Lowry Model Heritage, J. Ani. Inst. Plarmers 37, 100-I IO (1971).
22. Crecine .I. P. A Time-Oriewtrd Metropolirun Model .for Spclriul Loccrrim. Technical Bulletin No. 6. Com-
munity Renewal Program. Pittsburgh. PA (1964).
23. Goldner W. and Graybeal R. The Buy Arm Simulrrtim Study: Pilot Model of Smtc~ C/cm Connry trr~d Sow
Applicufions, Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics. University of California. Berkeley. CA (1965).
24. Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics. Jobs, People trmi Land, Institute of Urban and Regional
Development. University of California. Berkeley, CA (1968).
25. Putman S. H. Urban Land Use and Transportation Models: A State-of-the-Art Summary. TruJl\porrclriorl
Res. 9. 1X7-202 (1975).
26. Putman S. H. and Ducca F. W. Calibrating Urban Residential Models I: Procedure and Strategies.
Ewiromwnf md Pltrrining A 10, 633-650 (1978).
27. Putman S. H. and Ducca F. W. Calibrating Urban Residential Models 2: Empirical Results, Etiriro~irurur
md Plmnimg A 10, 1001-1014 (1978).
2x. Putman S. H. and Ducca F. W. Calibrating Residential Location Models 3: Empirical Results for Non-U.S.
Cities, Enrirmrmwf md P/u,ining A 12, 8 13-827 (1980).
29. Putman S. H. Development of an Improved Integrated Transportation and Land Use Model Package.
Draft of Report on Results NSF Grant APR 73-07840-AD2. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA
(1978).
30. Harris B., Wilson R. H. and Ducca F. Algorithm 5: Gradient Search on an N-Dimensional Surface.
En~ironmenr urld Planniny A IO, 327-343 (1978).
31. Putnam S. H. Calibrating a Disaggregated Residential Allocation Model--DRAM: The Residential Sub-
model of the Integrated Transportation and Land Use Package-ITLUP, Paper prepared for the 8th
Annual Conference of the Regional Science Association, British Section, London (1975).
32. Kuner P. Investigation of Traffic Assignment Algorithms. The 1~1f~rrrluri-~n.ships of Trtrmporrufim cmd Lund
Use De~elop~wnf. S. H. Putman er crl. (Eds.), U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington. D.C. (1976).
33. Gross M. The Impact of Transportation and Land Use Policies on Urban Air Quality. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI (1979).
34. Association of Bay Area Governments. fntryrurrd Land Usr;‘Air Quu/ity,‘Water Quulitj, Conrrol Snrtfy fhr
Sown~u County, Cul@rniu, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Berkeley, CA. Contract No. 6X-01-2648
(1976).
35. Edwards J. L. Relationships Between Transportation. Energy Consumption and Urban Spatial Structure.
Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University (1975).
36. Spofford, W. 0. Jr. Ecological Modelling in a Resource Management Framework: An Introduction. Eco-
loqicctl Modelliry in u Resource Muna~~enrenr Frummork, C. S. Russell (Ed.). Resources for the Future.
Washington. D.C. (1975).