By Devraj Verma
The relationship between land use and transport is one of the most fundamental and dynamic elements shaping urban growth, accessibility, and sustainability. Land use determines where people live, work, and engage in various activities, while transport systems influence the ease with which these activities can be accessed. This interaction creates a continuous feedback loop—transport investments shape land development patterns, and in turn, urban form influences travel behavior and transport demand. Given the complexity of this interdependence, policy intervention becomes essential to ensure balanced, equitable, and sustainable development outcomes.
In most developing and rapidly urbanizing regions, the lack of coordinated land use and transport planning has resulted in sprawling urban forms, long commutes, and inefficient infrastructure utilization. The traditional approach of addressing land use and transportation as separate sectors has proven inadequate to deal with challenges such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and social inequities in accessibility. Hence, a policy framework integrating land use and transport planning is needed to promote compact urban forms, reduce travel demand, and enhance accessibility through sustainable modes like public transit, walking, and cycling.
One of the major policy needs lies in promoting Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)—a strategy that integrates high-density, mixed-use development with efficient public transport networks (Sharma & Dehalwar, 2025). By aligning land use zoning with transport corridors, TOD encourages a modal shift away from private vehicles and fosters livable, walkable communities. Policies supporting TOD can include density bonuses near transit nodes, reduced parking requirements, and mixed-income housing incentives to ensure social inclusivity. As highlighted in studies by Cervero and Guerra (2011), cities that implemented TOD policies—such as Curitiba, Singapore, and Copenhagen—have achieved higher public transit shares and reduced urban sprawl, demonstrating the tangible benefits of such policy interventions.
Another critical area for policy action is integrated urban governance. Land use and transport planning often fall under different institutional jurisdictions, leading to fragmented decision-making. Effective policy must therefore establish inter-agency coordination mechanisms, unified spatial planning frameworks, and integrated databases for transport and land use modeling. For instance, Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (LTA) exemplifies how centralized governance can successfully synchronize transport investments with spatial development policies, resulting in efficient land utilization and minimized congestion.
Moreover, policy interventions must address the equity dimension of land use–transport systems. Accessibility to jobs, education, and services should not be determined by socio-economic status or location. Policies promoting affordable housing near transit corridors, subsidized transit passes, and inclusive infrastructure design can ensure that marginalized communities also benefit from integrated planning. Without such interventions, market forces alone tend to create exclusionary patterns, pushing low-income groups to peripheral areas with poor connectivity.
Finally, climate and sustainability goals necessitate land use–transport integration in policy frameworks. Compact urban forms reduce per capita energy consumption, while policies promoting non-motorized and public transport modes significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions. Integrating transport and land use planning into national climate strategies aligns local development with global commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (particularly SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities).
In conclusion, the interaction between land use and transport is not a spontaneous equilibrium but a system that requires strategic guidance through informed policy interventions. By integrating spatial and transport planning, encouraging transit-oriented and mixed-use development, ensuring social equity, and embedding sustainability in governance frameworks, policymakers can steer cities toward efficiency, inclusivity, and resilience. The need for such policies is not merely academic—it is an urgent prerequisite for achieving sustainable urban futures.
References
Acheampong, R. A., & Silva, E. A. (2015). Land use–transport interaction modeling: A review of the literature and future research directions. Journal of Transport and Land use, 8(3), 11-38.
Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). A Systematic Literature Review of Transit-Oriented Development to Assess Its Role in Economic Development of City. Transportation in Developing Economies, 11(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-025-00245-1
Pfaffenbichler, P., Emberger, G., & Shepherd, S. (2010). A system dynamics approach to land use transport interaction modelling: the strategic model MARS and its application. System Dynamics Review, 26(3), 262-282.
Sharma, S. N., & Dehawar, K. (2025). Review of Landuse Transportation Interaction Model in Smart Urban Growth Management. European Transport, Issue 103, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17315313
Webster, F. V., & Paulley, N. J. (1990). An international study on land‐use and transport interaction. Transport Reviews, 10(4), 287-308.
Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Examining the Inclusivity of India’s National Urban Transport Policy for Senior Citizens. In D. S.-K. Ting & J. A. Stagner, Transforming Healthcare Infrastructure (1st ed., pp. 115–134). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003513834-5
Lodhi, A. S., Jaiswal, A., & Sharma, S. N. (2024). Assessing bus users satisfaction using discrete choice models: A case of Bhopal. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 9(11), 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01652-w
Sharma, S. N., Kumar, A., & Dehalwar, K. (2024). The Precursors of Transit-oriented Development. Economic and Political Weekly, 59(14), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10939448
Van Wee, B. (2015). Toward a new generation of land use transport interaction models. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 8(3), 1-10.
Sharma, S. N., Singh, D., & Dehalwar, K. (2024). Surrogate Safety Analysis- Leveraging Advanced Technologies for Safer Roads. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 31(4), 010320(1-14). https://doi.org/10.55766/sujst-2024-04-e03837
Kumar, G., Vyas, S., Sharma, S. N., & Dehalwar, K. (2025). Urban growth prediction using CA-ANN model and spatial analysis for planning policy in Indore city, India. GeoJournal, 90(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-025-11393-7
Sharma, S. N. (2019). Review of most used urban growth models. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 10(3), 397-405. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372478470_Review_of_Most_Used_Urban_Growth_Models
Wilson, A. G. (1998). Land-use/transport interaction models: Past and future. Journal of transport economics and policy, 3-26.
