Abstract
This dissertation contains two standalone essays in which urban location models are developed to analyze various issues in urban and transportation economics related to commuting distances, location patterns, and urban sprawl. The first essay examines possible reasons for ‘wasteful’ or ‘excess’ commuting, whereby observed commuting distances generally exceed those predicted by standard models of household location choice. It is likely that households are willing to accept a longer commute to work if proximity to certain amenities is important to them. To examine this issue, a model with two job centers, a central business district (CBD) and a subcenter, is developed. Households are assumed to either have preferences for amenities (which are located in the CBD), or they do not, regardless of job location. It is shown that households who work in the subcenter but who like the amenities in the CBD may be willing to locate further from their jobs in order to be closer to the amenities (thus increasing average commuting distance in the city), especially when proximity to the amenities is highly valued. The second essay focuses on urban sprawl and the effects of different anti-sprawl policies on welfare and urban structure. A model with heterogeneous households and firms that can locate anywhere in the city is developed. The main features of the model are traffic congestion and household preferences for open space, both of which are closely associated with urban sprawl. The model also includes agglomeration economies, providing a more complete picture of how firms choose locations. Numerical results show equilibrium location patterns, rents, and wages under different model specifications. The model is then used to analyze the impacts of two popular anti-sprawl policies: congestion tolling and an urban growth boundary. The results suggest that congestion tolls may decrease welfare if unsubsidized agglomeration economies are very high, because higher travel costs lead to the decentralization of firms. Meanwhile, the urban growth boundary increases the amount of open space but reduces the supply of land for residences and offices, and is welfare-improving only if household preferences for open space are very strong.