This research aims to identify the role of network architecture in influencing individual travel behavior using travel survey data from Minneapolis-Saint Paul and Florida (Fort Lauderdale and Miami). Various measures of network structure, compiled from existing sources, are used to quantify roadway networks, and to capture the arrangement and connectivity of nodes and links in the networks and the spatial variations that exist among and within networks. The regression models show that travel behavior is correlated with network design.
CerveroRGorhamR, 1995, “Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods”Journal of the American Planning Association61210–225
5.
CerveroRKockelmanK, 1997, “Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design”Transportation Research Part D2199–219
6.
CerveroRRadischC, 1996, “Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods”Transport Policy3(3) 127–141
7.
CraneR, 2000, “The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretive review”Journal of Planning Literature15(1) 3–23
8.
DerribleSKennedyC, 2009, “A network analysis of subway systems in the world using updated graph theory”Transportation Research Recordnumber 2112, 17–25
9.
DillJ, 2004, “Measuring network connectivity for walking and biking”, in 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board paper 04–001550, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
10.
ErathALöchlMAxhausenK, 2009, “Graph-theoretical analysis of the Swiss road and railway networks over time”Networks and Spatial Economics9379–400
11.
FrankLPivoG, 1994, “Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1466, 44–52
12.
GarrisonW LMarbleD F, 1961, “The structure of transportation networks”, draft of a report submitted 31 October, 1961 to US Army Transportation Research Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, by the Transportation Center at Northwestern University under contract DA-44-177-TC-685, Transportation Geography Study, Transportation Center at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
13.
HaggettPChorleyR, 1969Network Analysis in Geography (Edward Arnold, London)
14.
HandyS, 1992, “Regional versus local accessibility: Neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel”Built Environment18253–267
15.
HessP, 1997, “Measures of connectivity—comparison of pedestrian environments in Seattle and Bellevue suburbs, Washington”Places (Cambridge, Mass)1158–65
16.
JiangBClaramuntC, 2004, “Topological analysis of urban street networks”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31151–162
17.
KanskyK, 1963Structure of Transportation Networks: Relationships Between Network Geometry and Regional Characteristics PhD thesis, RP84, Department of Geography, University of Chicago
18.
KisslingC, 1969, “Linkage importance in a regional highway network”The Canadian Geographer13(2) 113–127
19.
KitamuraRMokhtarianPDaidetL, 1997, “A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area”Transportation24(2) 125–158
20.
KockelmanK, 1997, “Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1607, 116–125
21.
KrizekK, 2003, “Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use–travel behavior research and regional modeling”Journal of Planning Education and Research22270–287
22.
LevinsonDEl-GeneidyA, 2009, “The minimum circuity frontier and the journey to work”Regional Science and Urban Economics39732–738
23.
LevinsonDHarderKBloomfieldJWiniarczykK, 2004, “Weighting waiting: Evaluating perception of in-vehicle travel time under moving and stopped conditions”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1898, 61–68
24.
LevinsonDHarderKBloomfieldJCarlsonK, 2006, “Waiting tolerance: Ramp delay vs. freeway congestion”Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour91–13
25.
LiSShumY, 2001, “Impacts of the National Trunk Highway system on accessibility in China”Journal of Transport Geography9(1) 39–48
26.
McNallyMKulkarniA, 1997, “Assessment of influence of land use–transportation system on travel behavior”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1607, 105–115
27.
MarshallS, 2005Streets and Patterns (Spon, New York)
28.
ParthasarathiPLevinsonD, 2011, “Network structure and metropolitan mobility”, paper presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
29.
ParthasarathiPHochmairHLevinsonD, 2011a, “Network structure and travel time perception”, working paper, Nexus Research Group, University of Minnesota
30.
ParthasarathiPLevinsonDHochmairH, 2011b, “Network structure and activity spaces”, paper presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
31.
RodrigueJ-PComtoisCSlackB, 2006The Geography of Transport Systems (Routledge, London)
32.
SouthworthMBen-JosephE, 2003Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities (Island Press, Washington, DC)
33.
SrinivasanS, 2002, “Qualifying spatial characteristics of cities”Urban Studies392005–2028
34.
TaaffeEGauthierHMortonE, 1996Geography of Transportation (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ)
35.
van ExelN ARietveldP, 2010, “Perceptions of public transport travel time and their effect on choice-sets among car drivers”Journal of Transport and Land Use2(3/4) 75–86
36.
WardropJ, 1952, “Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research”Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers1325–378
37.
XieFLevinsonD, 2007, “Measuring the structure of road networks”Geographical Analysis39336–356
38.
ZhangLXieFLevinsonD, 2009, “Illusion of motion: Variation of subjective value of travel time under different driving conditions”Transportation Research Recordnumber 2135, 34–42
39.
ZhuS, 2010The Roads Taken: Theory and Evidence on Route Choice in the wake of the I-35 W Mississippi River Bridge Collapse and Reconstruction PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
40.
ZhuSTilahunNLevinsonDHeX, 2011, “Travel impacts and adjustment strategies of the collapse and the reopening of the I-35W Bridge”, in Network Reliability in Practice Eds LevinsonD MLiuH XBallM (Springer, New York) pp 21–36
41.
ZhuSLevinsonDLiuH, 2010, “Measuring winners and losers from the new I-35W Mississippi River Bridge”, presented at the 89th Transportation Research Board Conference, Washington, DC, working paper, Nexus Research Group, University of Minnesota
