It doesn't really make much difference; there isn't a lot of local reference. (Although it has been argued that Luke says so many nice things about Philippi in Acts, that either he was a native of the place, or else he wrote Luke/Acts in Philippi for Philippian consumption. But on the other hand, maybe he just liked Philippi.)

Date? Well, some scholars point out that Luke makes no reference to any event later than AD 62 (leaving out the persecutions of Nero, the Fall of Jerusalem, and much more). It would be odd for him not to make some passing reference to these major events, if they had already taken place when he wrote. The end of Paul's life isn't mentioned either, nor even his fourth missionary journey, on which he seems to have reached Spain and perhaps even seen the Atlantic.

Although Luke mentions the fulfilling of Agabus' prophecy (Acts 11:28) he never says that the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) has been fulfilled. Paul's letters had a crucial role in the early church, but they are never mentioned in Acts. The Ephesian elders go away in Acts 20 convinced that they'll never see Paul again; but we know from 2 Tim 1:18 that he did later go back to Ephesus. So did Luke write both books before this later journey took place?

All of this would point to a date in the early 60s. Most liberal scholars argue for a much later date (in the 80s), however, because:

• passages such as Lk 19:43 and 21:20 seem to give a pretty clear description of the Fall of Jerusalem, so it's argued that this must have already happened. But there's nothing in those passages so suspiciously specific that they sound like `prophesying after the event'; there's no reason why Jesus shouldn't have been able to predict what would happen to Jerusalem; and the fact that Christians in Jerusalem took flight to the hills, when the invasion of Jerusalem started, suggests that they were already aware of Luke's warnings when AD 70 arrived!
• Luke clearly used Mark, so Mark must already have been written. Certainly, but there's no reason why Mark shouldn't be an earlier production than often assumed.
• According to 1:1, there were already many accounts of Jesus in existence, and that would take time. But thirty years after Jesus allows plenty of time for a writing tradition to develop.