This study was motivated by the need for more empirical research on the urban form–travel connection. A two-tiered travel effect is expected from strengthening the urban form–travel connection: the enhancement of access to choices and a shift in travel mode choice from driving to nondriving. Existing studies have focused primarily on the second-tier effect but have largely omitted the first. This study attempted to fill that gap. Through joint-logit modeling of choice set formation and travel mode choice in three cities–-Boston, Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon; and Houston, Texas–-the study measured the degree of automobile dependence in the three cities. It also estimated elasticities of automobile dependence and of driving probabilities with respect to land use densi-fication, transit access improvement, and control of motorization. There were large variations in the levels of automobile dependence and their elasticity estimates among the three cities. Public policies aimed at reducing automobile dependence should be formulated and evaluated based not just on the final outcome of modal split but also on the provision of travel options to travelers. As cities differ in their existing urban forms, currently available transportation services, and prevailing preferences of travel, it is important to recognize that the same set of policy strategies implemented in different cities is unlikely to generate the same level of effects in reducing automobile dependence.
BernickM., and CerveroR.. Transit Villages in the 21st Century.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
3.
KatzP.The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
4.
NewmanP., and KenworthyJ.. Sustainability and Cities—Overcoming Automobile Dependence.Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
5.
BadoeD., and MillerE.. Transportation–Land Use Interaction: Empirical Findings in North America, and Their Implications for Modeling.Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, 2000, pp. 235–263.
6.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–114.
7.
NCHRP 8–51: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments.NCHRP, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+8-51. Accessed Nov. 1, 2004.
8.
NewmanP., and KenworthyJ.. Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook.Gower, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1989.
9.
KenworthyJ.Automobile Dependence in Bangkok: An International Comparison with Implications for Planning Policies.World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1995, pp. 31–41.
10.
KenworthyJ., and LaubeF.. Patterns of Automobile Dependence in Cities: An International Overview of Key Physical and Economic Dimensions with Some Implications for Urban Policy.Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, 1999, pp. 691–723.
11.
KenworthyJ., LaubeF., BarterP., RaadT., and PoboonC.. An International Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities, 1960–1990.University Press of Colorado, Denver, 2000.
12.
LitmanT.The Cost of Automobile Dependency and the Benefits of Balanced Transportation.Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 1999.
13.
Gomez-IbanezJ. A.A Global View of Automobile Dependence.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57, 1991, pp. 376–379.
14.
GordonP., and RichardsonH.. Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Reply.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 55, No. 3, 1989, pp. 342–346.
15.
BrindleB.Lies, Damned Lies and “Automobile Dependence”—Some Hyperbolic Reflections.Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum, Vol. 19, 1994, pp. 117–131.
16.
HandyS.Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Nonwork Travel Behavior.Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, 1996, pp. 183–198.
17.
CraneR.The Impacts of Urban Form on Travel: A Critical Review.Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass., 1999.
18.
FriedmanB., GordonS. P., and PeersJ. B.. Effect of Neotraditional Neighborhood Design on Travel Characteristics. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 63–70.
19.
CerveroR., and GorhamR.. Commuting in Transit Versus Automobile Neighborhoods.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, 1995, pp. 210–225.
20.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.. Travel Demand and the Three Ds: Density, Diversity and Design.Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, 1997, pp. 199–219.
21.
FrankL. D., and PivoG.. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 44–52.
22.
EwingR., HaliyurP., and PageG. W.. Getting Around a Traditional City, a Suburban Planned Unit Development, and Everything in Between. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 53–62.
23.
CerveroR., and WuK.Influences of Land Use Environments on Commuting Choices: An Analysis of Large U.S. Metropolitan Areas Using the 1985 American Housing Survey. Working Paper 683. University of California, Berkeley, 1997.
24.
CerveroR.Built Environment and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework.Transportation Research D, Vol. 7, 2002, pp. 265–284.
25.
ZhangM.The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2004, pp. 344–360.
26.
CraneR., and CrepeauR.. Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel? A Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data.Transportation Research D, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1998, pp. 225–238.
27.
HessD. B.Effect of Free Parking on Commuter Mode Choice: Evidence from Travel Diary Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1753, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 35–42.
28.
GoodwinP.Mobility and Car Dependence. In Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (Rothengatter andT., VayaE., Pergamon, ed.), Pergamon, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1997, pp. 449–464.
29.
CullinaneS., and CullinaneK.. Car Dependence in a Public Transport Dominated City: Evidence from Hong Kong.Transportation Research D, Vol. 8, 2003, pp. 129–138.
30.
LyonsG., and SwinbankS. A.. A Case Study of the Development of Car Dependence in Teenagers.Proc., 11th European Transport Conference, Planning and Sustainability, 1998, pp. 89–101.
31.
StradlingS.Reducing Car Dependence. In Integrated Futures and Transport Choices (Hine andJ., PrestonJ., ed.), Ashgate, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 2002, pp. 100–115.
32.
ManskiC.The Structure of Random Utility Models.Theory and Decision, Vol. 8, 1977, pp. 229–254.
33.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.. Discrete Choice Analysis.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
34.
SwaitJ., and Ben-AkivaM.Empirical Test of a Constrained Choice Discrete Model: Mode Choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil.Transportation Research B, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1987, pp. 103–115.
35.
HorowitzJ., and LouviereL.. What Is the Role of Consideration Sets in Choice Modeling?International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 39–54.
36.
Ben-AkivaM., and BoccaraB.. Discrete Choice Models with Latent Choice Sets.International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 9–24.
37.
SwaitJ.Choice Set Generation Within the Generalized Extreme Value Family of Discrete Choice Models.Transportation Research B, Vol. 35, No. 7, 2001, pp. 643–666.
38.
Ben-AkivaM.Choice Models with Simple Choice Set Generating Processes. Working paper. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1977.
39.
BhatC. R.Endogenous Segmentation Model Choice Model with an Application to Intercity Travel.Transportation Science, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1997, pp. 34–48.
40.
KockelmanK.Modeling Traffic's Flow-Density Relation: Accommodation of Multiple Flow Regimes and Traveler Types.Transportation, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 363–374.
41.
RosenbloomS.Why Working Families Need a Car. In The Car and the City: The Automobile, the Built Environment, and Daily Urban Life (Watches andM., CrawfordM., ed.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1992, pp. 39–56.
42.
KainJ., and LiuZ.. Secrets of Success: Assessing the Large Increases in Transit Ridership Achieved by Houston and San Diego Transit Providers.Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7, 1999, pp. 601–624.
43.
EwingR., and OttoC.Elasticities of Walking with Respect to Density, Diversity, and Design—A Meta Analysis. Presented at 2004 Annual Conference of Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Portland, Ore., Oct. 20–24, 2004.
