, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 697–711

Reviewing the axial-line approach to capturing vehicular trip-makers’ route-choice decisions with ground reality



This paper reports some limitations of the axial analysis theory as a basis for modeling the distribution of vehicular movement with a relationship study between the syntax configuration of a North American city and its vehicular flow pattern. Along with the relevance of the axial-line philosophy of capturing vehicular trip-makers’ route-choice decisions, many general concerns dealing with the effects of network character, land use, traffic congestion, and configuration boundary have been critically analyzed with theoretical and empirical research results. A few procedural concerns have also been discussed. The conclusions suggest that the inclusion of the real-world variables of traffic and network studies into the methodology of generating configuration–movement relationships is expected to make the space syntax approach to modeling vehicular movement networks comprehensive.


Vehicular traffic estimation Route choice Space syntax Axial analysis Network character Mobility characteristics Land use 


  1. Batty, M., Jiang, B., Thurstain-Goodwin, M.: Local movement: agent-based models of pedestrian flow. Working Paper 4, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London (1998)Google Scholar
  2. Caria, F., Serdoura, F., Ferreira, V.: Recent interventions in the collective space of Lisbon: spatial configuration and human activities in Lisbon central area. In: 39th ISoCaRP Congress, pp. 1–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. Dawson, P.: Analysing the effects of spatial configuration on human movement and social interaction in Canadian Arctic communities. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium (1), London, pp. 37.1–14 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. Eisenberg, B.: Space syntax on the waterfront: the Hamburg case study. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium (1), Netherlands, Techne Press, Delft, pp. 342–353 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. Figueiredo, L., Amorim, L.: Continuity lines in the axial system. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium (1), Netherlands, Techne Press, Delft, pp. 162–174 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Fricker, J., Whitford, R.: Modeling transportation demand and supply. Fundamentals of transportation engineering: a multimodal system approach, pp. 183–251. Pearson Prentice Hall, London (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Hillier, B.: Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  8. Hillier, B.: The common language of space: a way of looking at the social, economic and environmental functioning of cities on a common basis. (1998). Accessed on 12 Jan 2005
  9. Hillier, B.: The hidden geometry of deformed grids: or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 26, 169–191 (1999a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hillier, B.: Centrality as a process: accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. Urban Des. Int. 4(3), 107–127 (1999b). ISSN 13575317Google Scholar
  11. Hillier, B., Iida, S.: Network effects and psychological effects: a theory of urban movement. In: Cohn, A.G., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT, LNCS 3693, pp. 475–490. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., Xu, J.: Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 20(1), 29–66 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., Penn, A.: Creating life; or, does architecture determine anything? Arch. Comport./Arch. Behav. 3, 233–250 (1987a)Google Scholar
  14. Hillier, B., Peponis, J., Hanson, J.: Syntactic analysis of settlements. Arch. Comport./Arch. Behav. 3, 217–231 (1987b)Google Scholar
  15. Hillier, B., Hanson, J.: The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jiang, B., Claramunt, C., Batty, M.: Geometric accessibility and geographic information: extending desktop GIS to space syntax. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 23, 127–146 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jun, C., Kwon, J., Choi, Y., Lee, I.: An alternative measure of public transport accessibility based on space syntax. In: Szczuka M.S., et al. (eds.) Advances in Hybrid Information Technology, First International Conference, 2006. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, LNAI 4413, pp. 281–291 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. Karimi, K., Mohamed, N.: The tale of two cities: urban planning of the city Isfahan in the past and present. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium 1, London, pp. 14.1–16 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. Major, M.: Designing for context: the use of ‘space syntax’ as an interactive design tool in urban development. Plan. Forum 6, 40–56 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. Paul, A.: An integrated approach to modeling vehicular movement networks: trip assignment and space syntax. PhD thesis, Texas Tech University (2009)Google Scholar
  21. Paul, A.: Axial analysis: a syntactic approach to movement network modelling. Inst. Town Plan. India J. 8(1), 29–40 (2011a). ND: ITPI, ISSN 0537-9679Google Scholar
  22. Paul, A.: A critical review of the equilibrium approach to vehicular traffic estimation. Traffic Eng. Control 52(6A), 265–268 (2011b)Google Scholar
  23. Paul, A.: An integrated approach to modeling vehicular movement networks, (synopsis). Traffic Eng. Control 52(10), 416–420 (2011c)Google Scholar
  24. Paul, A.: Unit-segment analysis: a space syntax approach to capturing vehicular travel behavior emulating configurational properties of roadway structures. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 12(3), 275–290 (2012a)Google Scholar
  25. Paul, A.: Land-use accessibility model: a theoretical approach to capturing land-use influence on traffic flows through configurational measures of spatial networks. Int. J. Urban Sci. 16(2), 225–241 (2012b)Google Scholar
  26. Peponis, J., Ross, C., Rashid, M.: The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: the case of Atlanta. Geoforum 28(3-4), 341–358 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peponis, J., Hadjinikolaou, E., Livieratos, C., Fatouros, D.: The spatial core of urban culture. Ekistics 334, 43–55 (1989)Google Scholar
  28. Penn, A.: Space syntax and spatial configuration: or why the axial line? Environment and Behavior, 35, SAGE Publications, pp. 30–65. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, 2001, pp. 11.1–17 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. Penn, A., Hillier, W., Banister, D., Xu, J.: Configurational modeling of urban movement networks. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 25, 59–84 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ratti, C.: Space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 31, 487–499 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ratti, C.: The lineage of the line: space syntax parameters from the analysis of urban DEMs. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 32, 547–566 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Read, S.: Space syntax and the Dutch city. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 26, 251–264 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Transportation Research Board: Highway capacity manual. NRC, Washington DC (2000)Google Scholar
  34. Turner, A.: Depthmap: a program to perform visibility graph analysis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space Syntax. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, pp. 31.1–9 (2001–2006)Google Scholar
  35. Turner, A.: From axial to road-centre lines: a new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transport network analysis. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 34, 539–555 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations