The paper explores relationships between seven dimensions of land use in 1990 and subsequent levels of three traffic congestion outcomes in 2000 for a sample of 50 large US urban areas. Multiple regression models are developed to address several methodological concerns, including reverse causation and time-lags. Controlling for prior levels of congestion and changes in an urban area's transport network and relevant demographics, it is found that: density/ continuity is positively related to subsequent roadway ADT/lane and delay per capita; housing centrality is positively related to subsequent delay per capita; and housing-job proximity is inversely related to subsequent commute time. Only the last result corresponds to the conventional wisdom that more compact metropolitan land use patterns reduce traffic congestion. These results prove two points: that the choice of congestion measure may substantively affect the results; and that multivariate statistical analyses are necessary to control for potentially confounding influences, such as population growth and investment in the transport network.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldassare, M. (2002) PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Land Use . San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
2.
Boarnet, M.G., Kim, E.J. and Parkany, E. (1998) Measuring Traffic Congestion, Transportation Research Record, 1634, pp. 93-99.
3.
Burchell, R.W., Shad, N.A., Listokin, D. ET AL. (1998) The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited. TCRP Report 39. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Cervero, R. (2003) Road expansion, urban growth, and induced travel: a path analysis, Journal of the American Planning Association , 69(2), pp. 145-163.
5.
Cervero, R. and Wu, K.-L. (1998) Sub-centring and commuting: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-90, Urban Studies, 35(7), pp. 1059-1076.
6.
Crane, R. (1996) Cars and drivers in the new suburbs: linking access to travel in neotraditional planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), pp. 51-65.
7.
Cutsinger, J., Galster, G., Hanson, R. and Towns, D. (2005) Verifying the multidimensional nature of metropolitan land use: advancing the understanding and measurement of sprawl, Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(3), pp. 235-259.
8.
Downs, A. (1992) Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
9.
Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. (2001) Travel and the built environment: a synthesis, Transportation Research Record, 1780, pp. 87-114.
10.
Ewing, R., Pendall, R. and Chen, D. (2003) Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts , Transportation Research Record, 1831, pp. 175-183.
11.
Federal Highway Administration (1990) Highway Statistics, 1990. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
12.
Federal Highway Administration (2001) Highway Statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
13.
Federal Transit Administration (1991) National Transit Summaries and Trends for the 1990 section 15 report year . Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
14.
Federal Transit Administration. (2001) National Transit Summaries and Trends, 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
15.
Frank, L.D. (2000) Land use and transportation interaction: implications on public health and quality of life, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20 (1), pp. 6-22.
16.
Fulton, L.M., Noland, R.B., Meszler, D.J. and Thomas, J.V. (2000) A statistical analysis of induced travel effects in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region, Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 3(1), pp. 1-14.
17.
Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M.R. ET AL. (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept, Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), pp. 681-709.
18.
Gillham, O. (2002) The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. Washington, DC: Island Press .
19.
Gordon, P. and Richardson, H.W. (1994) Congestion trends in metropolitan areas, in: M. Wachs ET Al. (Eds) Curbing Gridlock: Peak-period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion , pp. 1-31. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
Gordon, P., Kumar, A. and Richardson, H.W. (1989a) Congestion, changing metropolitan structure, and city size in the United States, International Regional Science Review, 12(1), pp. 45-56.
21.
Gordon, P., Kumar, A. and Richardson, H.W. (1989b) The influence of metropolitan spatial structure on commuting time, Journal of Urban Economics , 26, pp. 138-151.
22.
Gordon, P., Lee, B. and Richardson, H.W. (2004) Travel Trends in U.S. Cities: Explaining the 2000 Census Commuting Results . Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
23.
Gordon, P., Richardson, H.W. and Jun, M.-J. (1991) The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty , Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(4), pp. 416-420.
24.
Hansen, M. and Huang, Y. (1997) Road supply and traffic in California urban areas , Transportation Research A, 31(3), pp. 205-218.
25.
Horner, M.W. (2004) Spatial dimensions of urban commuting: a review of major issues and their implications for future geographic research, Professional Geographer, 56(2), pp. 160-173.
26.
Izraeli, O. and Mccarthy, T.R. (1985) Variations in travel distance, travel time and modal choice among SMSAs, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, pp. 139-160.
27.
Levinson, D.M. (1998) Accessibility and the journey to work, Journal of TransportGeography, 6(1), pp. 11-21.
28.
Levinson, D.M. and Kumar, A. (1997) Density and the journey to work, Growth and Change, 28, pp. 147-172.
29.
Malpezzi, S. (1999) Estimates of the measurement and determinants of urban sprawl in U.S. metropolitan areas. Center for Urban Land Economics Research , University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
30.
McGuckin, N.A. and Srinivasan, N. (2003) Journey to work in the United States and its major metropolitan areas-1960-2000 (FHWA-EP-03-058). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
31.
Meyer, M.D. (1994) Alternative methods for measuring congestion levels , in: M. Wachs ET Al. (Eds) Curbing Gridlock: Peak-period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, pp. 32-61. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32.
National League Of Cities (2001) The State of America's Cities: The Seventeenth Annual Opinion Survey of Municipal Elected Officials. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
33.
Pisarski, A.E. (1992) New Perspectives in Commuting. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
34.
Reschovsky, C. (2004) Journey to Work: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-33 . US Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
35.
Schrank, D. and Lomax, T. (2002) The 2002 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute (available at: http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/study/final_report.pdf; accessed November 2002).
36.
Schrank, D. and Lomax, T. (2004) The 2004 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute (available at: http://mobility.tamu.edu; accessed October 2004).
37.
Shen, Q. (2000) Spatial and social dimensions of commuting, Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), pp. 68-82.
38.
Surface Transportation Policy Project (2001 ) Easing the Burden: A Companion Analysis of the Texas Transportation Institute's Congestion Study. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
39.
Us Census Bureau (2004) Decennial Census (available at: http://factfinder.census.gov ; accessed February 2004).
40.
Us Department Of Commerce (1993) 1990 Census of Population and Housing Supplementary Reports: Metropolitan Areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, June 30, 1993. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office .
41.
Vandersmissen, M.-H., Villeneuve, P. and Theriault, M. (2003) Analyzing changes in urban form and commuting time , Professional Geographer, 55(4), pp. 446-463.
42.
Wachs, M., Gomez-Ibanez, J.A., Hanson, S.E. ET AL. (1994) Curbing Gridlock: Peak-period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Special Report 242Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43.
Wang, F. (2000) Modeling commuting patterns in Chicago in a GIS environment: a job accessibility perspective, Professional Geographer, 52(1), pp. 120-133.
44.
Wolman, H., Galster, G., Hanson, R. ET AL. (2005) The fundamental challenge in measuring sprawl: which land should be considered ?, Professional Geographer , 57(1), pp. 94-105.
