With the individual trip diary from the recent 2009 National Household Travel Survey, a study was done on the effect of neighborhood-level smart growth patterns and socioeconomic diversity on commute mode choice, daily work travel mode choice, and nonwork travel mode choice for individuals living in neighborhoods in the Los Angeles, California, metropolitan statistical area. Model results consistently showed that nonauto transportation infrastructure diversity and quality were the most important aspects of smart growth patterns that affected the choice of nonauto travel modes. Moreover, housing mix in a neighborhood increased the likelihood of choosing walking and cycling for daily work trips and daily nonwork trips. The socioeconomic diversity of a neighborhood reduced the likelihood of choosing walking and cycling for daily nonwork trips. The remaining two factors—residential density and mixed use—insignificantly affected travel mode choice. Overall, people living in smart growth neighborhoods in Los Angeles do travel smarter, in that they use environmentally more sustainable (bus and train) and healthier (walking and cycling) travel modes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GordonP., and RichardsonH. W.Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 95–106.
2.
EwingR.Is Los Angeles–Style Sprawl Desirable?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 107–126.
3.
BhatC. R., SenS., and EluruN.The Impact of Demographics, Built Environment Attributes, Vehicle Characteristics, and Gasoline Prices on Household Vehicle Holdings and Use. Transportation Research B, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1–18.
4.
BoarnetM. G., and SarmientoS.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.
5.
BoarnetM. G., and CraneR.The Influence of Land Use on Travel Behavior: Specification and Estimation Strategies. Transportation Research A, Vol. 35, No. 9, 2001, pp. 823–845.
6.
BoarnetM. G., GreenwaldM., and McMillanT.Walking, Urban Design, and Health: Toward a Cost–Benefit Analysis Framework. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2008, pp. 341–358.
7.
CaoX., HandyS. L., and MokhtarianP. L.The Influences of the Built Environment and Residential Self-Selection on Pedestrian Behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1–20.
8.
CaoX., MokhtarianP. L., and HandyS. L.Do Changes in Neighborhood Characteristics Lead to Changes in Travel Behavior? A Structural Equations Modeling Approach. Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2007, pp. 535–556.
9.
CaoX., MokhtarianP. L., and HandyS. L.Examining the Impacts of Residential Self-Selection on Travel Behaviour: A Focus on Empirical Findings. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009, pp. 359–395.
10.
CaoX., MokhtarianP. L., and HandyS. L.The Relationship Between the Built Environment and Nonwork Travel: A Case Study of Northern California. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2009, pp. 548–559.
11.
CerveroR.Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework. Transportation Research D, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2002, pp. 265–284.
12.
CerveroR.Induced Travel Demand: Research Design, Empirical Evidence, and Normative Policies. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2002, pp. 3–20.
13.
CerveroR.Alternative Approaches to Modeling the Travel Demand Impacts of Smart Growth. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2006, pp. 285–295.
14.
CerveroR.Transit Oriented Development's Ridership Bonus: A Product of Self-Selection and Public Policies. Environment and Planning Part A, Vol. 39, No. 9, 2007, pp. 2068–2085.
15.
CerveroR., and DuncanM.Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1478–1483.
16.
CerveroR., and DuncanM.Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs–Housing Balance or Retail–Housing Mixing?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2006, pp. 475–490.
17.
EwingR., GreenwaldM. J., ZhangM., WaltersJ., FeldmanM., CerveroR., and ThomasJ.Measuring the Impact of Urban Form and Transit Access on Mixed Use Site Trip Generation Rates—Portland Pilot Study.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
18.
EwingR., and CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294.
19.
SalonD., BoarnetM. G., HandyS. L., SpearsS., and TalG.How Do Local Actions Affect VMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 17, No. 7, 2012, pp. 495–508.
20.
EcheniqueM. H., HargreavesA. J., MitchellG., and NamdeoA.Growing Cities Sustainably. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, No. 2, 2012, pp. 121–137.
21.
FoxM.Transport Planning and the Human Activity Approach. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1995, pp. 105–116.
22.
StrathmanJ. G., DuekerK. J., and DavisJ. S.Effects of Household Structure and Selected Travel Characteristics on Trip Chaining. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 23–45.
23.
ZhuP.Telecommuting, Travel Behavior and Residential Location Choice: Can Telecommuting Be an Effective Policy to Reduce Travel Demand? PhD dissertation. University of Southern California, 2011.
24.
ZhuP.Are Telecommuting and Personal Travel Complements or Substitutes?Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2012, pp. 619–639.
25.
ZhuP.Telecommuting, Household Commute and Location Choice. Urban Studies, 2013.
26.
EwingR., and NelsonA. C.CO2 Reductions Attributable to Smart Growth in California.Climate Change, San Francisco, Calif., 2008.
27.
BartholomewK., and EwingR.Land Use Transportation Scenarios and Future Vehicle Travel and Land Consumption. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 75, No. 1, 2009, pp. 13–27.
28.
CerveroR., and MurakamiJ.Effects of Built Environments on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Evidence from 370 U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2010, pp. 400–418.
29.
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, No. 2, 1997, pp. 125–158.
30.
MessengerT., and EwingR.Transit-Oriented Development in the Sunbelt. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 145–153.
31.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219.
32.
HoltzclawJ.Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs.Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, Calif., 1994.
33.
CerveroR.Jobs–Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 55, 1989, pp. 136–150.
34.
CerveroR.Walk-and-Ride: Factors Influencing Pedestrian Access to Transit. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2001, pp. 1–23.
35.
CerveroR.The Built Environment and Travel: Evidence from the United States. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2003, pp. 119–137.
36.
CraneR.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.
37.
CraneR.The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000, pp. 3–23.
38.
EwingR., DeAnnaM., and LiS.-C.Land Use Impacts on Trip Generation Rates. In Transportation Research Record 1518, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–6.
39.
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.
40.
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., 1995, pp. 44–52.
41.
SongY.Smart Growth and Urban Development Pattern: A Comparative Study. International Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 239–265.
42.
IcelandJ.Beyond Black and White: Residential Segregation in Multiethnic America. Social Science Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2004, pp. 248–271.
43.
MilesR., and SongY.“Good” Neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon: Focus on Both Social and Physical Environments. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2009, pp. 491–509.
HwangK., and GiulianoG.The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. University of California Transportation Center Working Paper No. 38. University of California Transportation Center, 1990.
46.
LiuC. Y., and PainterG.Travel Behavior Among Latino Immigrants: The Role of Ethnic Neighborhoods and Ethnic Employment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2012, pp. 62–80.
47.
ZhuP., and BrownJ.Donor States and Donee States: An Investigation of Geographic Redistribution in the U.S. Federal Highway Program 1974–2008. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2013, pp. 203–227.
