This paper reports results from a detailed travel diary survey of 2125 residents in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County—a mature, auto-oriented suburban region. Study areas were divided into four centres, typical of compact development or smart growth, and four linear, auto-oriented corridors. Results show substantial variation in the amount of walking across study areas. Trips are shorter and more likely to be via walking in centres. A key to the centres’ increased walking travel is the concentration of local shopping and service destinations in a commercial core. Yet the amount of business concentration that is associated with highly pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods is from three to four times as large as what can be supported by the local resident base, suggesting that pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods necessarily import shopping trips, and hence driving trips, from larger surrounding catchment areas. The results suggest both land use and mobility strategies that can be appropriate for suburban regions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Badoe, D. and Miller, E.J. ( 2000) Transportation- land use interaction: empirical findings in North America and their implications for modeling, Transportation Research Part D, 5(4), pp. 235-263.
2.
Bagley, M.N. and Mokhtarian, P.L. ( 2002) The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach, Annals of Regional Science, 36(2), pp. 279-297.
3.
Bento, A.M., Cropper, M.L., Mobarak, A.M. and Vinha, K. ( 2005) The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States, The Review of Economics and Statistics , 87(3), pp. 466-478.
4.
Bhat, C.R. and Guo, J.Y. ( 2007) A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels, Transportation Research B, 41(5), pp. 506-526.
5.
Boarnet, M. ( 2004) The built environment and physical activity: empirical methods and data resources. Background paper prepared for the Transportation Research Board-Institute of Medicine panel on Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence . Washington, DC (http://trb.org/downloads/sr282papers/sr282Boarnet.pdf).
6.
Boarnet, M.G. and Crane, R. ( 2001) Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel . New York: Oxford University Press .
7.
Boarnet, M.G. and Sarmiento, S. ( 1998) Can land use policy really affect travel behaviour? , Urban Studies, 35(7), pp. 1155-1169.
8.
Boarnet, M.G., Anderson, C., Day, K. et al. (2005) Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: urban form changes and children’s active transportation to school, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), pp. 134-140.
9.
Boarnet, M.G., Day, K., Anderson, C. et al. (2005) California’s Safe Routes to School program: impacts on walking, bicycling, and pedestrian safety, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(3), pp. 301-317.
10.
Boarnet, M.G., Nesamani, K. and Smith, C.S. ( 2003) Comparing the influence of land use on nonwork trip generation and vehicle distance traveled: an analysis using travel diary data. Paper presented at the 2004 meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
11.
Brownstone, D. ( 2008) Key relationships between the built environment and VMT. Draft paper prepared for the Transportation Research Board panel on Relationships Among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy, October.
12.
Brownstone, D. and Golob, T.(2009) The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption , Journal of Urban Economics, 65, pp. 91-98.
13.
California Air Resources Board (2008) Climate change proposed scoping plan: a framework for change. October (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ document/scopingplandocument.htm) .
14.
California Senate (n.d.) website ( http://www.sen.ca.gov/; see Legislation; accessed October 2008 ).
15.
Calthorpe, P. ( 1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
16.
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. and Handy, S.L.(2009) Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on empirical findings, Transport Reviews , 29(3), pp. 359-395.
17.
Cervero, R. ( 2009) Infrastructure and development: planning matters , in: M. G. Boarnet (Ed.) Transportation Infrastructure: The Challenges of Rebuilding America. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association .
18.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. ( 1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design , Transportation Research D, 2(3), pp. 199-219.
19.
Chatman, D.G. ( 2008) Residential choice, the built environment, and non-work travel: evidence using new data and methods, Environment and Planning A, 41(5), pp. 1072-1089.
20.
Cook, T.D. ( 2008) ‘Waiting for life to arrive’: a history of the regression-discontinuity design in psychology, statistics, and economics , Journal of Econometrics, 142, pp. 636-654.
21.
Crane, R. ( 1996a) Cars and drivers in the new suburbs: linking access to travel in neotraditional planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, pp. 51-65.
22.
Crane, R. ( 1996b) On form versus function: will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, pp. 117-126.
23.
Crane, R. ( 2000) The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review, Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1), pp. 3-23.
24.
ERA (Economics Research Associates) (2008a) Project report: base economic analysis. Prepared for South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Los Angeles, CA, February, ERA Project No. 17504.
25.
ERA (2008b) SBCCOG livable communities: ERA market feasibility analysis report. Los Angeles, CA , May, ERA Project No. 17504.
26.
Ewing, R. ( 2008) Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. Working paper, University of Utah.
27.
Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. ( 2001) Travel and the built environment: a synthesis, Transportation Research Record, 1780, pp. 87-114.
28.
Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L. et al. (2006) Many pathways to health: associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and pollutant emissions, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), pp. 75-87.
29.
Gomez-Ibanez, J.A. ( 1991) A global view of automobile dependence, Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(3), pp. 376-391.
30.
Handy, S.L. ( 2005) Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: what does the research tell us?, International Regional Science Review, 28(2), pp. 146-167.
31.
Handy, S.L., Cao, X. and Mokhtarian, P. ( 2006) Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: empirical evidence from northern California , Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), pp. 55-74.
32.
Hanson, S. and Hanson, P. ( 1981) The travel-activity patterns of urban residents: dimensions and relationships to sociodemographic characteristics, Economic Geography, 57(4), pp. 332-347.
33.
Holtzclaw, J., Clear, R., Dittmar, H. et al. (2002) Location efficiency: neighborhood and socio-economic characteristics determine auto ownership and use-studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, Transportation Planning and Technology , 25(1), pp. 1-27.
34.
Imbens, G.W. and Lemieux, T. ( 2008) Regression discontinuity designs: a guide to practice , Journal of Econometrics, 142, pp. 615-635.
35.
Jackson, K.T. ( 1987) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
Krizek, K.J. ( 2003) Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood scale urban form matter?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), pp. 265-281.
37.
Moulton, B.R. ( 1990) An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro unit, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(2), pp. 334-338.
38.
National Research Council, Committee on Relationships among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy Consumption (2009) Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on MotorizedTravel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.
39.
Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. ( 1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook . Aldershot: Gower.
40.
Rodríguez, D.A. and Joo, J. ( 2004) The relationship between non-motorized travel behavior and the local physical environment, Transportation Research Part D, 9(2), pp. 151-173.
41.
Rodríguez, D.A., Brown, A.L. and Troped, P.J. ( 2005) Portable global positioning units to complement accelerometry-based physical activity monitors, Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, pp. S572-S581.
42.
Solimar Research (2005) Mixed-use centers in the South Bay: how do they function and do they change travel demand?Solimar Research Group, Ventura, CA (http://www.southbaycities.org/node/255; accessed December 2008).
43.
Stivers, M. (n.d.) Bill analysis, Senate Bill375 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_cfa_20080903_100317_sen_comm.html; accessed 19 October 2008).
44.
Vance, C. and Hedel, R. ( 2007) The impact of urban form on automobile travel, Transportation, 34, pp. 575-588.
45.
Vickerman, R.W. ( 1972) The demand for non-work travel, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 6(2), pp. 176-210.
