The relationship between travel behavior and the local built environment remains far from entirely resolved, despite several research efforts in the area. The significance and explanatory power of a variety of urban form measures on nonwork activity travel mode choice have been investigated. The travel data used for analysis are from the 1995 Portland Metropolitan Activity Survey conducted by Portland Metro. The database on the local built environment was developed by Song in 2002 and includes a more extensive set of variables than previous studies that have examined the relationship between travel behavior and the local built environment by using the Portland data. The results of the multinomial logit mode choice model indicate that mixed uses promote walking behavior for nonwork activities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DuanyA., and Plater-ZyberkE.. The Second Coming of the American Small Town. Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 16, Winter, 1992, pp. 19–51.
2.
CerveroR.America’s Suburban Centers: The Land Use-Transportation Link. Allen and Unwin, London, 1989.
3.
CerveroR.Mixed Land Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research A, Vol. 30, 1996, pp. 361–377.
4.
Cambridge Systematics. The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Strategies on Commuting Behavior. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994.
5.
KockelmanK. M.Which Matters More in Mode Choice: Density or Income?Institute of Transportation Engineers 1995, Compendium of Technical Papers, 1995, pp. 844–867.
6.
MessengerT., and EwingR.. Transit-Oriented Development in the Sun Belt. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 145–153.
7.
CerveroR., and WuK.. Influence of Land Use Environments on Commuting Choices: An Analysis of Large U.S. Metropolitan Areas Using the 1985 American Housing Survey. Working Paper 683. University of California at Berkeley, 1997.
8.
LevinsonD. M., and KumarA.. Density and the Journey to Work. Growth and Change, Vol. 28, 1997, pp. 147–173.
9.
HandyS. L.Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Nonwork Travel. Built Environment, Vol. 18, 1992, pp. 253–267.
10.
BhatC. R., CariniJ. P., and MisraR.. Modeling the Generation and Organization of Household Activity Stops. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 153–161.
11.
BoarnetM. G., and SarmientoS.. Can Land Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link Between Nonwork Travel and Land Use Characteristics. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1155–1169.
12.
BoarnetM. G., and CraneR.. The Influence of Land Use on Travel Behavior: Specification and Estimation Strategies. Transportation Research A, Vol. 35, 2001, pp. 823–845.
13.
ReillyM. K.Influence of Urban Form and Land Use on Mode Choice: Evidence from the 1996 Bay Area Travel Survey. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.
BhatC. R., and SinghS. K.. A Comprehensive Daily Activity-Travel Generation Model System for Workers. Transportation Research A, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1–22.
16.
SpillarR. J., and RutherfordG. S.. The Effects of Population Density and Income on Per Capita Transit Ridership in Western American Cities. Institute of Transportation Engineers 1990, Compendium of Technical Papers, 1990, pp. 327–331.
17.
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.
18.
CerveroR., RoodT., and AppleyardB.. Job Accessibility as a Performance Indicator: An Analysis of Trends and Their Social Policy Implications in the San Francisco Bay Area. Working Paper 692. University of California at Berkeley, 1997.
19.
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.
20.
PozsgayM. A. and BhatC. R.. Destination Choice Modeling for Home-Based Recreational Trips: Analysis and Implications for Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Planning. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1777, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 47–54.
21.
BhatC. R., and ZhaoH.. The Spatial Analysis of Activity Stop Generation. Transportation Research B, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2002, pp. 593–616.
22.
FrankL. D., and PivoG.. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 44–52.
23.
HoltzclawJ.Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs. Unpublished Report. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, 1994.
24.
KitamuraR., AkiyamaT., YamamotoT., and GolobT. F.. Accessibility in a Metropolis: Toward a Better Understanding of Land Use and Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 64–75.
25.
KockelmanK. M.Travel Behavior as a Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing and Land Use Balance: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s thesis. University of California at Berkeley, 1996.
26.
GreenwaldM. J., and BoarnetM. G.. Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analyzing Nonwork Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 33–42.
27.
HandyS. L., and CliftonK. J.. Local Shopping as a Strategy for Reducing Automobile Travel. Transportation, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 317–346.
28.
HessP. M., MoudonA. V., and LogsdonM. G.. Measuring Land Use Patterns for Transportation Research. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 17–24.
29.
Trip Making in Traditional San Diego Communities. Working Paper. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, Calif., 1993.
30.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas. Building Orientation—A Supplement to “The Pedestrian Environment.” 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, 1994, pp. 9–14.
31.
McNallyM. G., and KulkarniA.. Assessment of Influence of Land Use–Transportation System on Travel Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 105–115.
32.
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.
33.
KitamuraR., MokhtarianP. L., and LaidetL.. A Microanalysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 125–158.
34.
SongY.Valuing the Impacts of New Urbanism Features on Prices of Single-Family Homes: A Case Study of Portland, Oregon. Dissertation. Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana–-Champaign, 2002.
35.
Bendavid-ValA.Regional and Local Economic Analysis for Practitioners, 4th ed. Praeger, Westport, Conn., 1991.
36.
BhatC. R., and GossenR.. A Mixed Multinomial Logit Model Analysis of Weekend Recreational Episode Type Choice. Technical Report. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
37.
LevinsonD. M., and KumarA.. Multimodal Trip Distribution: Structure and Application. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 124–131.
38.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS. R.. Discrete Choice Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
