Planners are increasingly viewing land-use policy as a way to manage transport demand. Yet the evidence on the link between land use and travel behaviour is inconclusive. This paper uses travel diary data for southern California residents to examine the link between land-use patterns at the neighbourhood level and non-work trip generation for a sample of 769 individuals. The number of non-work automobile trips that an individual makes in a two-day period is modelled as a function of socio-demographic variables and land-use characteristics near the person's place of residence. The land-use variables are statistically insignificant in all but one of the specifications. The results suggest that choices about how to measure the variables and how to specify the regressions can influence the conclusions from these studies in potentially important ways. This underscores the need for continued careful attention to these research issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1000 Friends Of Oregon (1993) The Pedestrian Environment: Volume 4A. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., Portland, Oregon.
2.
Angrist, J. and Krueger, A.B. (1989) Why do World War Ilveterans earn more than nonveterans ? Working Paper No. 2991, National Bureau of Economic Research , Cambridge, MA.
3.
Angrist, J. and Krueger, A.B. (1994) Why do World War II veterans earn more than nonveterans ?, Journal of Labor Economics, 12(1), pp. 74-97.
4.
Association Of Bay Area Governments (1985) JobslHousing Balance for Traffic Mitigation: Interstate 680 and Interstate 580 Corridor Study. Oakland, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.
5.
Boarnet, M.G. and Sarmiento, S. (1996) Can land use policy really affect travel behavior? Working Paper, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine.
6.
Brownstone, D. and Golob, T.F. (1992) The effectiveness of ridesharing incentives-discrete choice models of commuting in southern California, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 22(1), pp. 5—24.
7.
Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: PrincetonArchitectural Press.
8.
Cervero, R. (1986) Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick, NJCentre for Urban Policy Research Press.
9.
Cervero, R. (1989) Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility, Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, pp. 136-150.
10.
Cervero, R. and Gorham, R. (1995) Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods , Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, pp. 210-225.
11.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. (1996) Travel demand and the three Ds: density, diversity, and design. Working Paper No. 674, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley .
12.
City Of Los Angeles (1993) Proposed Land Usel Transportation Policy. Planning Department, City of Los Angeles.
13.
City Of San Diego (1992) Transit-oriented Development Design Guidelines. Prepared by Calthorpe Associates, San Diego, California.
14.
Crane, R. (1996) On form versus function: will the New Urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, pp. 117-126.
15.
Crane, R. and Crepeau, R. (1996) Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine. (Mimeograph).
16.
Duany, A. and Plater-Zyberk, E. (1991) Towns and Town-making Principles. New York: Rizzoli.
17.
Ewing, R., Haliyur, P. and Page, G.W. (1995) Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between, Transportation Research Record, 1466, pp. 53-62.
18.
Frank, L.D. and Pivo, G. (1995) Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking, Transportation Research Record, 1466, pp.44-52.
19.
Greene, W. (1990) Econometric Analysis. New York : Macmillan.
20.
Handy, S. (1993) Regional versus local accessibility: implications for nonwork travel, Transportation Research Record, 1400, pp. 58—66.
21.
Handy, S. (1996) Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior, Journal of Planning Education and Research , 15(3), pp. 183-198.
22.
Institute Of Transportation Engineers (1997 ) Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design Guidelines. A Proposed Recommended Practice of the ITE. Washington, DC: ITE.
23.
Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P. and Laidet, L. (1994) A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay area. Working Paper No. UCD-ITS-RR-94-28, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
24.
Kockelman, K. (1996) Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: evidence from the San Francisco Bay area. Unpublished MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
25.
Kulkarni, A.A. (1996) The influence of land use and network structure on travel behavior. Unpublished MA thesis, University of California, Irvine.
26.
Levine, J. (1996) Rethinking accessibility and jobs-housing balancing. Working Paper, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
27.
Linneman, P. and Graves, P.E. (1983) Migration and job change: a multinomial logit approach , Journal of Urban Economics, 14, pp. 263-279.
28.
Quigley, J.M. and Weinberg, D.H. (1977) Intra-urban residential mobility: a review and synthesis, International Regional Science Review, 2, pp. 41-66.
29.
Sarmiento, S. (1995) Studies in transportation and residential mobility. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine.
30.
Small, K.A. and Hsiao, C. (1985) Multinomial logit specification tests, International Economic Review, 26(3), pp. 619-627.
31.
Train, K. (1986) Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
32.
Vickerman, R.W. (1972) The demand for nonwork travel, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 6(2), pp. 176-210.
