Vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) has been widely used in regional planning as a key sustainability performance indicator. Many regional growth plans for reducing work trip VKT have been proposed, with a focus on land use development in employment centers. Despite the potential impact of urban form on the reduction of VKT, the fundamentals of how this takes place remain unclear. This study analyzes the relationship between urban form, VKT, and mode shares by examining office commuting patterns in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) through a structural equation modeling approach. The model supports the substantial impact of urban form on the reduction of VKT; however, it indicates that such an impact is made mostly through shifting modes, rather than directly on reduced travel distances. This model is then used to evaluate critically a regional growth plan for the GTHA, finding that strategies focusing solely on increasing land use densities in employment centers are not likely to reduce regional VKT significantly without also easing commuting auto dependency. Thus, it is recommended that more sustainable travel alternatives for workers in employment centers should be provided to achieve a sufficient reduction in VKT.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
IngramG. K.Patterns of Metropolitan Development: What Have We Learned?Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1019–1035.
2.
NechybaT. J.WalshR. P.Urban Sprawl. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2004, pp. 177–200.
3.
CameronI.LyonsT. J.KenworthyJ. R.Trends in Vehicle Kilometres of Travel in World Cities, 1960-1990: Underlying Drivers and Policy Responses. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2004, pp. 287–298.
4.
MillerE. J.IbrahimA.Urban Form and Vehicular Travel: Some Empirical Findings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1998. 1617: 3–21.
5.
CerveroR.KockelmanK.Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 1997. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 199–219.
6.
CerveroR.MurakamiJ.Effects of Built Environments on Vehicle Miles Travelled: Evidence from 370 US Urbanized Areas. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 42, 2010, pp. 400–418.
7.
EwingR.CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294.
8.
EwingR.CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001. 1780: 87–114.
9.
DubinR.Commuting Patterns and Firm Decentralization. Land Economics, Vol. 67, No. 1, 1991, pp. 15–29.
10.
GordonP.RichardsonH. W.JunM-J.The Commuting Paradox: Evidence from the Top Twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57, No. 4, 1991, pp. 416–420.
11.
LewinsonD. M.KumarA.The Rational Locator: Why Travel Times Have Remained Stable. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 60, No. 3, 1994, pp. 319–332.
12.
WachsM.TaylorB. D.LevineN.OngP.The Changing Commute: A Case Study of the Jobs–Housing Relationship over Time. Urban Studies, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1993, pp. 1711–1729.
13.
CerveroR.WuK-L.Sub-Centring and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-90. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1059–1076.
14.
SchwanenT.DijstM.DielemanF. M.A Microlevel Analysis of Residential Context and Travel Time. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 34, 2002, pp. 1487–1507.
15.
MokhtarianP. L.ChenC.TTB or Not TTB, That Is the Question: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature on Travel Time (and Money) Budgets. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 38, 2004, pp. 643–675.
16.
LevinsonD.WuY.The Rational Locator Reexamined: Are Travel Times Still Stable?Transportation, Vol. 32, 2005, pp. 187–202.
17.
StevensM. R.Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 83, No. 1, 2017, pp. 7–18.
18.
HandyS.Smart Growth and the Transportation–Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?International Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 146–167.
19.
NaessP.SandbergS. L.Workplace Location, Modal Split and Energy Use for Commuting Trips. Urban Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1996, pp. 557–580.
20.
HandyS.Enough with the “D’s” Already—Let’s Get Back to “A”. Transfers Magazine, Vol. 1, 2018, pp. 24–26.
21.
DeboosereR.El-GeneidyA. M.LevinsonD.Accessibility-Oriented Development. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 70, 2018, pp. 11–20.
KasraianD.RaghavS.YusufB.MillerE. J.A Longitudinal Analysis of Travel Demand and Its Determinants in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area. Submitted to Transportmetrica A, 2019.
Statistics Canada. Canadian Business Patterns, Dissemination Area Level. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP/FLLHOV. Accessed November 20, 2018.
38.
AllenJ.FarberS.A Measure of Competitive Access to Destinations for Comparing Across Multiple Study Regions. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2019, pp. 69–86.
39.
MerlinL. A.HuL.Does Competition Matter in Measures of Job Accessibility? Explaining Employment in Los Angeles. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 64, 2017, pp. 77–88.
40.
ÖsthJ.LyhagenJ.ReggianiA.A New Way of Determining Distance Decay Parameters in Spatial Interaction Models with Application to Job Accessibility Analysis in Sweden. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 16, 2016, p. 2.
