Vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is a primary performance indicator for land use and transportation, bringing with it both positive and negative externalities. This study updates and refines previous work on VMT in urbanised areas, using recent data, additional metrics and structural equation modelling (SEM). In a cross-sectional model for 2010, population, income and freeway capacity are positively related to VMT, while gasoline prices, development density and transit service levels are negatively related. Findings of the cross-sectional model are generally confirmed in a more tightly controlled longitudinal study of changes in VMT between 2000 and 2010, the first model of its kind. The cross-sectional and longitudinal models together, plus the transportation literature generally, give us a basis for generalising across studies to arrive at elasticity values of VMT with respect to different urban variables.
BartholomewK (2009) Cities and accessibility: The potential for carbon reductions and the need for national leadership. Fordham Urban Law Journal36(2): 159–209.
2.
BronsMNijkampPPelsE. (2006) A Meta-analysis of the Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand. A System of Equations Approach. Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper.
3.
CaoXMokhtarianPLHandySL (2009) Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews29(3): 359–395.
4.
CerveroR (2002) Induced travel demand: Research design, empirical evidence, and normative policies. Journal of Planning Literature17(1): 3–20.
5.
CerveroRKockelmanK (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research D2(3): 199–219.
6.
CerveroRMurakamiJ (2010) Effects of built environments on vehicle miles traveled: Evidence from 370 US urbanized areas. Environment and Planning A42: 400–418.
7.
CerveroR. (2004) Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. TCRP Report 102, Transportation Research Board.
8.
ChatmanDG (2009) Residential self-selection, the built environment, and nonwork travel: Evidence using new data and methods. Environment and Planning A41(5): 1072–1089.
9.
EspeyM (1998) Gasoline demand revisited: An international meta-analysis of elasticities. Energy Economics20: 273–295.
10.
EwingR (2008) Highway induced development: Results for metropolitan areas. Transportation Research Record2067: 101–109.
11.
EwingRCerveroR (2001) Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record1780: 87–114.
12.
EwingRCerveroR (2010) Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association76(3): 265–294.
13.
EwingRDumbaughE (2009) The built environment and traffic safety: A review of empirical evidence. Journal of Planning Literature23(4): 347–367.
14.
EwingRRongF (2008) Impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use. Housing Policy Debate19: 1–30.
15.
EwingRBartholomewKWinkelmanS. (2008) Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
16.
EwingRPendallRChenD (2002) Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
17.
EwingRNelsonACBartholomewK. (2011) Response to Special Report 298 – Driving and the built environment: The effects of compact development on motorized travel, energy use and CO2 emissions. Journal of Urbanism4(1): 1–5.
18.
GoodwinPDargeyJHanlyM (2004) Elasticities of road traffic and fuel consumption with respect to price and income: A review. Transport Reviews24(3): 275–292.
19.
GraceJB (2006) Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GrahamDJGlaisterS (2004) Road traffic demand elasticity estimates: A review. Transport Reviews24(3): 261–274.
21.
HarfordJD (2006) Congestion, pollution, and benefit-to-cost ratios of U.S. public transit systems. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment11(1): 45–58.
22.
KlineRB (2012) Assumptions in structural equation modeling. In: HoyleRH (ed.) Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 111–125.
23.
LeckE (2006) The impact of urban form on travel behavior: A meta-analysis. Berkeley Planning Journal19: 37–58.
24.
LemLLChamiRMoylanE (2013) The public transportation and land use multiplier: Greenhouse gas reduction potential and associated costs in the Los Angeles Southern California Metropolitan Region. In: Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. (No. 13–2088).
25.
LiuCShenQ (2011) An empirical analysis of the influence of urban form on household travel and energy consumption. Computers Environment and Urban Systems35(5): 347–357.
26.
LundHMWillsonRCerveroR (2006) A re-evaluation of travel behavior in California TODs. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research23(3): 247–263.
27.
NasriAZhangL (2012) Impact of metropolitan-level built environment on travel behavior. Transportation Research Record2323: 75–79.
28.
SalonDBoarnetMGHandyS. (2012). How do local actions affect VMT? A critical review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment17(7): 495–508.
29.
SmallKAVan DenderK (2007) Fuel efficiency and motor vehicle travel: The declining rebound effect. Economic Journal28(1): 25–51.
30.
TracyAJSuPSadekAW. (2011) Assessing the impact of the built environment on travel behavior: A case study of Buffalo, New York. Transportation38(4): 663–678.
31.
Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2009) Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Special Report 298. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
32.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2007) Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Available at: www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm (accessed 17 August 2010).
