Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Subject "Travel budgets"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Constraints in household relocation: Modeling land-use/transport interactions that respect time and monetary budgets
    (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2017) Moeckel, Rolf
    Traditionally, integrated land-use/transportation models intend to represent all opportunities of travel and household location, maximize utilities and find an equilibrium in which no person or household could improve their satisfaction any further. Energy scarcity, higher transportation costs, and an increasing share of low-income households, on the other hand, demand special attention to represent constraints that households face, rather than opportunities for utility maximization. The integrated land-use model SILO explicitly represents various constraints, including the price of a dwelling, the travel time to work, and the monetary transportation budget. SILO ensures that no household makes choices that violate these constraints. Implementing such constraints helps SILO to generate more realistic results under scenarios that put current conditions under a stress test, such as a serious increase in transportation costs or severely increased congestion.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prudential measures in housing access: Should one include transport costs in the front-end ratio?
    (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2017) Coulombel, Nicolas
    A widespread prudential measure limits the housing expense ratio—defined as the share of income spent on the rent or loan payment—to ensure household solvency. This policy is increasingly criticized, however, as it would induce households to settle far from the city center in search of lower housing prices, fostering urban sprawl. It would even prove counterproductive as high transport costs in distant areas would more than offset the lower housing costs. To avoid these unintended effects, several researchers advocate limiting the joint housing plus transport expense ratio instead. This paper aims to shed light on this issue by comparing the two prudential measures—limiting either the housing or the housing plus transport expense ratio—using the monocentric model. By constraining residential choices and reducing housing consumption, both policies improve household solvency and reduce urban sprawl. While this seems to contradict previous claims, the joint constraint proves more efficient in both regards. Provided the constraint is not too stringent, both policies have limited impact on household welfare and often even improve welfare. But this time, capping only the housing expense ratio always dominates the joint housing plus transport constraint. A numerical application to the Paris region illustrates our findings for a real case study. Results suggest that replacing the current limitation of the housing expense ratio with a joint housing plus transport constraint would significantly improve household solvency and curb urban sprawl, with a negligible welfare loss.