An attempt was made to determine how accessibility affects aspects of long-term and short-term travel behavior. The accessibility indices that were used represent the ease with which opportunities for engagement in activities can be reached from a geographical zone in an urban area. The behavioral aspects examined include engagement in activities, automobile ownership and use, and travel patterns as represented by the number of trips, number of trip chains, and total travel time expenditure. Data from the Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe metropolitan area of Japan and the southern California coast are used to examine the following conjectures: time availability is more closely associated with engagement in activities than accessibility; accessibility no longer affects automobile ownership or use in the metropolises of industrialized countries where motorization has matured; and given automobile ownership and use, travel patterns are conditionally independent of accessibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SteinerR. L.Residential Density and Travel Patterns: Review of the Literature. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 37–43.
2.
CerveroR.Land-Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1988, pp. 429–446.
3.
GolobT. F.A Model of Household Demand for Activity Participation and Mobility. In Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling (GärlingT., LaitillaT., and WestinK., eds.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998, pp. 365–398.
4.
TimmermansH., and van der WaerdenP.. The Structure of Travel Patterns: An International Comparison. Presented at 8th Meeting of the International Association for Travel Behaviour Research, Austin, Tex., 1997.
5.
GordonP., and RichardsonH. W.. Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, 1997, pp. 95–106.
6.
EwingR.Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 63, 1997, pp. 107–126.
7.
GilbertG., and DajaniJ. S.. Energy, Urban Form and Transportation Policy. Transportation Research, Vol. 8, 1974, pp. 267–276.
8.
PushkarevB., and ZupanJ. M.. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1977.
9.
NewmanP. W. G., and KenworthyJ. R.. Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook. Gower Technical, Brookfield, Vt., 1989.
10.
NakkashT. Z., and GreccoW. L.. Activity-Accessibility Models of Trip Generation. In Highway Research Record 392, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1972, pp. 98–110.
11.
PrevedourosP. D.Associations of Personality Characteristics with Transport Behavior and Residence Location Decisions. Transportation Research A, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1992, pp. 381–391.
12.
MillerE. J., and IbrahimA.. Urban Form and Vehicular Travel: Some Empirical Findings. Presented at 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.
13.
HoltzclawJ.Explaining Urban Density and Transit Impacts on Auto Use. Sierra Club, San Francisco, Calif., 1990.
14.
EwingR., HaliyurP., and PageG. W.. Getting Around a Traditional City, a Suburban Planned Unit Development, and Everything in Between. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 53–62.
15.
FrankL. D., and PivoG.. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 44–52.
16.
HandyS.Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Non-work Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58–66.
17.
HandyS. 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.
18.
CerveroR.Mixed Land-Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research A, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1996, pp. 361–377.
19.
CerveroR., and RadischC.. Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods. Transport Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996, pp. 127–141.
20.
KitamuraR., MokhtarianP. L., and LaidetL.. A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 125–158.
21.
CraneR., and CrepeauR.. Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel? A Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data. Transportation Research D, Vol. 3, 1998, pp. 225–238.
22.
RichardsonA. J., and YoungW.. A Measure of Linked-Trip Accessibility. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 7, 1982, pp. 73–82.
23.
KitamuraR.Incorporating Trip Chaining into Analysis of Destination Choice. Transportation Research B, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1984, pp. 67–81.
24.
BeesleyM. E., and KainJ. F.. Urban Form, Car Ownership and Public Policy: An Appraisal of Traffic in Towns. Urban Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 174–203.
25.
FairhurstM. H.The Influence of Public Transport on Car Ownership in London. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 9, 1975, pp. 193–208.
26.
BagleyM. N., MokhtarianP. L., and KitamuraR.. A Methodology for the Disaggregate, Multidimensional Measurement of Residential Neighborhood Type. Mimeograph (available fromKitamuraR.), 2000.
27.
HägerstrandT.What About People in Regional Science?Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 24, 1970, pp. 7–21.
28.
BurnsL. D.Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1979.
29.
BeckmannM. J., GolobT. F., and ZahaviY.. Travel Probability Fields and Urban Spatial Structure: Theory and Empirical Tests. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 15, 1983, pp. 593–606 and 727–738.
30.
PirieG. H.Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 11, 1979, pp. 299–312.
31.
NishiiK., and KondoK.. Trip Linkages of Urban Railway Commuters Under Time-Space Constraints: Some Empirical Observations. Transportation Research B, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1992, pp. 33–44.
32.
DammD.Parameters of Activity Behavior for Use in Travel Analysis. Transportation Research A, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1982, pp. 135–148.
33.
KitamuraR., YamamotoT., KishizawaK., and PendyalaR. M.. Stochastic Frontier Models of Prism Vertices. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 18–26.
34.
AignerD., LovellC. A. K., and SchmidtP.. Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 6, 1977, pp. 21–37.
35.
WaldmanD. M.A Stationary Point for the Stochastic Frontier Likelihood. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 18, 1982, pp. 275–279.
36.
KishizawaK.Development of a Model of Workers’ Activity Pattern Choice with Endogenously Determined Prism Constraints. M.S. thesis. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, 2000.
37.
KitamuraR., GolobT. F., YamamotoT., and WuG.. Accessibility and Auto Use in a Motorized Metropolis. Presented at 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
38.
GolobT. F., KitamuraR., BradleyM., and BunchD. S.. Predicting the Market Penetration of Electric and Clean-Fuel Vehicles. The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 134, 1993, pp. 371–381.
39.
KitamuraR., ChenC., and NarayananR.. Traveler Destination Choice Behavior: Effects of Time of Day, Activity Duration, and Home Location. In Transportation Research Record 1645, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 76–81.
40.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.. Disaggregate Travel and Mobility Choice Models and Measures of Accessibility. In Behavioural Travel Modelling (HensherD. and StopherP., eds.), Croom Helm, London, 1979, pp. 654–679.
41.
GolobT. F., KimS., and RenW.. How Households Use Different Types of Vehicles: A Structural Driver Allocation and Usage Model. Transportation Research A, Vol. 30, 1996, pp. 103–118.
42.
HayJ.Occupational Choice and Occupational Earnings. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1980.
43.
DubinJ., and McFaddenD.. An Econometric Analysis of Residential Electric Appliance Holdings and Consumption. Econometrica, Vol. 52, 1984, pp. 345–362.
44.
ManneringF. L.Selectivity Bias in Models of Discrete and Continuous Choice: An Empirical Analysis. In Transportation Research Record 1085, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 58–62.
45.
JöreskogK., and SörbomD.. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International Inc., Chicago, Ill., 1996.
46.
SchimekP.Household Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: How Much Does Residential Density Matter? In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 120–125.
47.
DunphyR. T., and FisherK.. Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 89–96.
