It is assumed that in new urban designs and compact cities, average travel distances tend to be shorter and more activities are linked in chains. As there is relatively little empirical evidence about the relationship between chain behavior and land use, especially from Europe, a study was done to obtain a better understanding of the influence of chains (referred to as tours) to test the hypothesis that compact urban forms reduce travel. The results indicate that higher densities lead not only to greater activity and greater tour demand but also to more complex tours. Although greater tour frequencies reduce mean tour distance, daily distance traveled increases. Moreover, complex tours have an encouraging effect on both tour distance and daily distance traveled. This confirms the hypothesis and previous evidence that more frequent tours and more stops per tour in high-density areas lead to more travel.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BadoeD. A., and MillerE. J.. Transportation-Land-Use Interaction: Empirical Findings in North America, and Their Implications for Modeling.Transportation Research D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2000, pp. 235–263.
2.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–114.
3.
CraneR.On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It?Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1996, pp. 117–126.
4.
van WeeB., and MaatK.. Land Use and Transport: A Review and Discussion of Dutch Research.European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2003, pp. 199–218.
5.
BhatC., and ZhaoH.. The Spatial Analysis of Activity Stop Generation.Transportation Research B: Methodological, Vol. 36, 2002, pp. 557–575.
6.
BanisterD.Reducing the Need to Travel.Environment and Planning B, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 437–449.
7.
ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Albatross, A Learning-Based Transportation Oriented Simulation System.EIRASS, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2000.
8.
ClarkeM. I., DixM. C., JonesP. M., and HeggieI. G.. Some Recent Developments in Activity-Travel Analysis and Modeling. In Transportation Research Record 794, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 1–8.
9.
HarmsL. Mobiliteit. In De Sociale Staat van Nederland 2005.Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Hague, Netherlands, 2005.
10.
MaJ., and GouliasK. G.. Application of Poisson Regression Models to Activity Frequency Analysis and Prediction. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 86–94.
11.
GolobT. F.A Simultaneous Model of Household Activity Participation and Trip Chain Generation.Transportation Research B: Methodological, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 355–376.
12.
NishiiK., and KondoK.. Trip Linkages of Urban Railway Commuters Under Time-Space Constraints: Some Empirical Observations.Transportation Research B: Methodological, Vol. 26, 1992, pp. 33–44.
13.
StrathmanJ. G., DuekerK. J., and DavisJ. S.. Effects of Household Structure and Selected Travel Characteristics on Trip Chaining.Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 23–45.
14.
EwingR.Beyond Density, Mode Choice, and Single-Purpose Trips.Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 49, 1995, pp. 15–24.
15.
KitamuraR., AkiyamaT., YamamotoT., and GolobT. F.. Accessibility in a Metropolis: Toward a Better Understanding of Land Use and Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 64–75.
16.
KrizekK. J.Neighborhood Services, Trip Purpose, and Tour-Based Travel.Transportation, Vol. 30, 2003, pp. 387–410.
17.
MaatK., van WeeB., and SteadD.. Land Use and Travel Behavior: Expected Effects from the Perspective of Utility Theory and Activity-Based Theories.Environment and Planning B, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2005, pp. 33–46.
18.
HansonS.The Importance of the Multi Purpose Journey to Work in Urban Travel.Transportation, Vol. 9, 1980, pp. 229–248.
19.
NishiiK., KondoK., and KitamuraR.. Empirical Analysis of Trip Chaining Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 1203, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 48–59.
20.
ArentzeT., DijstM., DugundjiE., JohC.-H., KapoenL., KrygsmanS., MaatK., and TimmermansH.. New Activity Diary Format: Design and Limited Empirical Evidence. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1768, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 79–88.
21.
ReichmanS.Travel Adjustments and Life Styles: A Behavioral Approach. In Behavioral Travel-Demand Models (StopherP. R., and MeyburgA. H., eds.), Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1976.
22.
MaatK., and HartsJ. J.. Implications of Urban Development for Travel Demand in the Netherlands. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 9–16.
23.
GeursK. T., and Ritsema van EckJ. R.. Evaluation of Accessibility Impacts of Land-Use Scenarios: The Implications of Job Competition, Land-Use, and Infrastructure Developments for the Netherlands.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 30, 2003, pp. 69–87.
GreeneW. H.Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models.Stern School of Business, New York,1994.
26.
VuongQ. H.Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses.Econometrica, Vol. 57, 1989, pp. 307–333.
27.
HandyS.Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Non-work Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58–66.
