Concerns over rising fuel prices and greenhouse-gas emissions have prompted research into the influences of built environments on travel, notably vehicle miles traveled (VMT). On the basis of data from 370 US urbanized areas and using structural equation modeling, population densities are shown to be strongly and positively associated with VMT per capita (direct effect elasticity = ⊟0.604); however, this effect is moderated by the traffic-inducing effects of denser urban settings having denser road networks and better local-retail accessibility (indirect effect elasticity = 0.223, yielding a net effect elasticity = ⊟0.381). Accessibility to basic employment has comparatively modest effects, as do size of urbanized area, and rail-transit supplies and usage. Nevertheless, urban planning and city design should be part of any strategic effort to shrink the environmental footprint of the urban transportation sector.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsherH, 1981Causal Modeling (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).
2.
BaileyLMokhtarianPLittleA, 2008, “The broader connection between public transportation, energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction”, paper prepared by ICF International for the American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC.
3.
Ben-AkivaMLermanS, 1985Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
4.
BhatCGuoJ, 2007, “A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels”Transportation Research B415006–5026.
5.
BoarnetM, 2004, “The built environment and physical activity: Empirical methods and data resources”, paper prepared for the Committee on Physical Activity, Health, Transportation, and Land Use, Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
6.
BoarnetMSarmientoS, 1998, “Can land-use policy really affect travel behavior? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics”Urban Studies351155–1169.
7.
BoiesAKittlesonDWinthropWLuckeJMcGinnisLMarshallJPattersonTNussbaumPWilsonE, 2008, “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources in Minnesota”, Report CTS 08–10, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
8.
BrownMSouthworthFSarzynskiA, 2008Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America Metropolitan Policy Program (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC).
9.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2007National Transportation StatisticsBureau of Transportation, Washington, DC.
10.
CaoXMokhtarianPHandyS, 2007, “Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach”Transportation34535–556.
11.
CarruthersJUlfarssonG, 2008, “Does ‘smart growth’ matter to public finance?”Urban Studies451791–1823.
12.
CerveroR, 1998The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry (Island Press, Washington, DC).
13.
CerveroR, 2005, “Accessible cities and regions: A framework for sustainable transport and urbanism in the 21st century”, WP UCB-ITS-VWP-2005-3, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport, Berkeley, CA.
14.
CerveroRKockelmanK, 1997, “Travel demand and the 3 Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design”Transportation Research D2199–219.
15.
ChatmanD, 2003, “How density and mixed uses at the workplace affect personal commercial travel and commute mode choice”Transportation Research Record number 1831, 193–201.
16.
CondonP, 2008, “Planning for climate change”Land Lines20 (1) 2–7.
17.
CraneR, 1996, “On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it?”Journal of Planning Education and Research15117–126.
18.
DKS Associates.2007, “Assessment of local models and tools for analyzing smart-growth strategies”, Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
19.
DownsA, 2004Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-hour Traffic Congestion (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC).
20.
DunphyRFisherK, 1996, “Transportation, congestion and density: New insights”Transportation Research Record number 1552, 120–125.
21.
EidenE, 2005, “The worst of all worlds: Los Angeles, California, and the emerging reality of dense sprawl”Transportation Research Record number 1902, 1–9.
22.
EwingRCerveroR, 2001, “Travel and the built environment: A synthesis”Transportation Research Record number 1780, 87–114.
23.
EwingRNelsonA, 2008, “CO2 reductions attributable to smart growth in California”, report prepared for the California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
24.
EwingRBartholomewKWinkelmanSWaltersJChenD, 2008Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change (Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC).
25.
FanXThompsonBWangL, 1999, “Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes”Structural Equation Modeling656–83.
26.
FrankLKavageSAppleyardB, 2007, “The urban form and climate change gamble”Planning73(8) 18–23.
27.
GlaeserEKahnM, 2008, “The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emission and urban development”, WP 14238, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
28.
GolobT, 2001, “Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research”, WP UCI-ITS-AS-WP-01-2, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, CA.
29.
GolobTBrownstoneD, 2005, “The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption”, WP UC-ITS-WP-05-01, Institute of Transportation Studies, Irvine, CA.
30.
HoltzclawJ, 1994Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs (Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA).
31.
HoltzclawJClearRDittmarHGoldsteinDHassP, 2002, “Location efficiency: Neighborhood and socio-economic characteristics determine auto ownership and use—studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco”Transportation Planning and Technology251–27.
32.
KlineR, 1998, “Software programs for structural equation modeling: AMOS, EQS, and LISREL”Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment16343–364.
33.
KrizekK, 2003, “Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood-scale urban form matter?”Journal of the American Planning Association69265–279.
34.
KuzmyakJPrattRDouglasGSpielbergF, 2003, “Traveler response to transportation system changes: Land use and site design”, in Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 95Transportaion Research Board, Washington, DC.
35.
LevinsonD MKrizekK J (Eds), 2005Access to Destinations (Elsevier, Oxford).
36.
LowryI, 1968. “Seven models of transportation-land use”Highway Research Record11451–71.
37.
McFaddenD, 1976The Mathematical Theory of Demand Models Behavioral Travel-demand Models Eds StopherPMeybergA (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA).
38.
McFaddenDReidF, 1975, “Aggregate travel demand forecasting from disaggregated behavioral models”Transportation Research Record53424–37.
39.
MarshallJ, 2008, “Energy-efficient urban form”Environmental Science and Technology423133–3137.
40.
MuiSAlsonBGaussD, 2007, “A wedge analysis of the US transportation sector”, EPA Report 420-R-07-007, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
41.
NelsonA, 2006, “Leadership in a new era”Journal of the American Planning Association72393–407.
42.
SchrankDLomaxT, 2007The 2007 Urban Mobility ReportTransportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
43.
WachsMKumagaiT, 1973, “Physical accessibility as a social indicator”Socio-Economic Planning Science6357–379.
44.
ZhuBWalterSRosenbaumPRussellDParminderR, 2006, “Structural equation and log-linear modeling: A comparison of methods in the analysis of a study on caregiver's health”BMC Medical Research Methodology649–62.
