Pretest-Posttest Strategy for Researching Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form and Travel Behavior

Abstract

Communities are increasingly looking to land use planning strategies based on a less auto-dependent urban form to reduce the need for travel, especially drive-alone travel. In recent years, several studies have attempted to test the impact urban form has on travel behavior to determine if such designs are warranted. The results of these studies are mixed because of several shortcomings. Some shortcomings can be attributed to data availability; others are a product of the techniques used to characterize urban form or travel. Still other shortcomings are embedded in the strategies employed, using cross-sectional travel data and correlating travel outcomes with urban form. The line of research is being extended, aimed at isolating the influence of urban form on travel behavior; a new research strategy is presented using longitudinal travel data in concert with detailed measures of travel behavior and urban form. Data sources from the Puget Sound are described and a research strategy is presented that permits a pretest-posttest analysis of households’ travel behavior before and after they changed residential location. Early results show few changes in household travel behavior after a move, suggesting that attitudes toward travel are firmly entrenched and postmove travel provides little insight into how changes in urban form affect travel. Although a pretest-posttest makes valiant strides in shedding new light on the matter, the complex phenomenon being addressed requires myriad approaches. More comprehensive research techniques and even research approaches based on different different traditions are much needed to better understand how urban form and travel interact.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nelson

, and Niles

J. S.

. Market Dynamics and Nonwork Travel Patterns: Obstacles to Transit Oriented Development. TRB Proc., National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Crane

On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It?

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1996, pp. 117–126.

Cervero

Paradigm Shift: From Automobility to Accessibility Planning. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley, 1996.

Handy

Methodologies for Exploring the Link Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. Transportation Research D, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1996, pp. 151–165.

Crane

The Impacts of Urban Form on Travel: A Critical Review. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1999.

Handy

S. L.

Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Variations in Suburban Form and the Effects on Non-Work Travel, in City and Regional Planning. University of California at Berkeley, 1992.

1000 Friends of Oregon. Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection: Vol. 4A: The Pedestrian Environment. LUTRAQ, with Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Calthorpe Associates, and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Portland, Oreg., 1993.

Kitamura

, Moktarian

P. L.

, and Laidet

. A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 125–158.

Boarnet

M. G.

, and Sarmiento

. Can Land-Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link Between Non-Work Travel and Land-Use Characteristics. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1155–1169.

10.

Cervero

Urban Design Issues Related to Transportation Modes, Designs and Services for Neo-Traditional Developments. Presented at Urban Design, Telecommuting and Travel Forecasting Conference, Williamsburg, Va., 1996.

11.

Hanson

The Importance of the Multi-Purpose Journey to Work in Urban Travel Behavior. Transportation, Vol. 9, 1980, pp. 229–248.

12.

Burnett

, and Thrift

N. J.

. New Approaches to Understanding Traveller Behavior. In Behavioural Travel Modelling ( Hensher

D. A.

and Stopher

P. R.

, eds.), Croom Helm, London, 1979, pp. 698–712.

13.

Handy

S. L.

Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neotraditional Development and Its Implications for Non-Work Travel. Built Environment, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1992, pp. 253–267.

14.

Handy

S. L.

Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 135–144.

15.

Crane

Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in Neotraditional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 1, 1996, pp. 51–65.

16.

Adler

, and Ben-Akiva

. A Theoretical and Empirical Model of Trip Chaining Behavior. Transportation Research B, Vol. 13, 1979, pp. 243–257.

17.

Murakami

, and Ulberg

. The Puget Sound Transportation Panel. In Panels in Transportation Planning ( Kitamura

, ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass., 1997, pp. 159–192.

18.

Cervero

, and Kockelman

. Travel Demand and the Three Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1997, pp. 199–219.

19.

Moudon

A. V.

, Hess

P. M.

, Snyder

M. C.

, and Stanilov

. Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use, Medium-Density Environments. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 48–55.

20.

McCormack

Using a GIS to Enhance the Value of Travel Diaries. ITE Journal, Jan. 1999, pp. 38–43.