This pilot study had two major research goals. The first goal was to develop a perception-based composite walkability index, with which researchers could evaluate the microlevel quality of the walking environment in an objective and systematic way. The second goal was to test the impact of microlevel walkability on mode choices, including walking as a travel option. For the development of a perception-based composite walkability index, a case study was conducted in the station area near the downtown of Mountain View, California, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Three surveys were conducted: a walker perception survey, a station user survey, and a street survey measuring microlevel walkability. A series of regression models was performed with the perception scores from surveyed transit users on the basis of their access trips to the station and with the objective microlevel walkability measured from their routes. The final outcome was a new formula for a composite walkability index. On the basis of the results of the station user survey, a pair of mode choice models was estimated to find the probability of transit users choosing walking over automobiles for their access trips to the station. The study introduced the new walkability index as a new walkability variable, which successfully entered the extended model and showed that it could improve the model in a statistically significant way.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219.
2.
CerveroR., SarmientoO., JacobyE., GomezL., and MeimanA.Influences of Built Environments on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogota. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 203–226.
3.
FotheringhamA., and WongD.The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 23, 1991, pp. 1025–1044.
4.
A Policy on the Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets, rev. ed. AASHO, Washington, D.C., 1973.
5.
MilazzoJ. S.II, RouphailN. M., HummerJ. E., and AllenD. P.Quality of Service for Uninterrupted-Flow Pedestrian Facilities in Highway Capacity Manual 2000. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1678, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 25–31.
6.
DixonL. B.Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–9.
7.
EvansJ. E.IV, PerincherryV., and DouglasG. B.IIITransit Friendliness Factor: Approach to Quantifying Transit Access Environment in a Transportation Planning Model. In Transportation Research Record 1604, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 32–39.
8.
KhistyC. J.Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities: Beyond the Level-of-Service Concept. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 45–50.
9.
CarseA.Assessment of Transport Quality of Life as an Alternative Transport Appraisal Technique. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1037–1045.
10.
SmithA. L.Contribution of Perceptions in Analysis of Walking Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2140, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 128–136.
11.
1000 Friends of Oregon. Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection: The Pedestrian Environment. Working Paper, Volume 4. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., New York, 1993.
12.
BoarnetM., DayK., AlfonzoM., ForsythA., and OakesM.The Irvine-Minnesota Inventory to Measure Built Environments: Reliability Tests. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006, pp. 144–159.
13.
CliftonK., SmithA. L., and RodriguezD.The Development and Testing of an Audit for the Pedestrian Environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 80, No. 1-2, 2007, pp. 95–100.
14.
EwingR., and HandyS.Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 14, No. 10, 2009, pp. 65–84.
15.
RivaM., GauvinL., ApparicioP., and BrodeurJ. M.Disentangling the Relative Influence of Built and Socioeconomic Environments on Walking: The Contribution of Areas Homogenous Along Exposures of Interest. Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 69, No. 9, 2009, pp. 1296–1305.
16.
SohnD. W., MoudonA. V., and LeeJ.The Economic Value of Walkable Neighborhoods. Urban Design International, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2012, pp. 115–128.
17.
LeeJ., ZegrasC., and Ben-JosephE.Safely Active Mobility for Urban Baby Boomers: The Role of Neighborhood Design. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 153–166.
18.
RodríguezD., KhattakA., and EvensonK.Can New Urbanism Encourage Physical Activity?Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2006, pp. 43–54.
19.
ForsythA., HearstM., OakesM., and SchmitzK.Design and Destinations: Factors Influencing Walking and Total Physical Activity. Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 9, 2008, pp. 1973–1996.
20.
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.
21.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
22.
ParkS., KangJ., and ChoiK.Finding Determinants of Transit Users’ Walking and Biking Access Trips to the Station: A Pilot Case Study. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2014, pp. 651–658.
23.
LoutzenheiserD. R.Pedestrian Access to Transit: Model of Walk Trips and Their Design and Urban Form Determinants Around Bay Area Rapid Transit Stations. In Transportation Research Record 1604, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 40–49.
24.
CerveroR.Walk-and-Ride: Factors Influencing Pedestrian Access to Transit. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2001, pp. 1–23.
25.
ParkS.Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 2008.
Van DyckD., CerinE., ConwayT., BourdeaudhuijI., OwenN., KerrJ., CardonG., FrankL., SaelensB., and SallisJ.Perceived Neighborhood Environmental Attributes Associated with Adults’ Transport-Related Walking and Cycling: Findings from the USA, Australia, and Belgium. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 9, No. 70, 2012, pp. 1–14.
28.
WangW., LiP., WangW., and NamgungM.Exploring Determinants of Pedestrians’ Satisfaction with Sidewalk Environments: Case Study in Korea. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, No. 138, 2012, pp. 166–172.
29.
RogersG. O., and SukolratanameteeS.Neighborhood Design and Sense of Community: Comparing Suburban Neighborhoods in Houston, Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 92, No. 3, 2009, pp. 325–334.
30.
CerveroR.Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 7, 2002, pp. 265–284.
