Many land use-transportation planning proposals aim to create neighborhoods with higher levels of neighborhood accessibility (NA). This article focuses on how such features are operationalized for purposes of research and/or regional modeling. The first section reviews specific variables classified by three basic tenets of NA: density, land use framework, and streets/design. The second section describes challenges in measuring NA to provide a better understanding of how such challenges shape research efforts and applications. The final section creates an NA index that is applied to the Central Puget Sound metropolitan area. The index uses detailed measures of density, land use mix, and street patterns and makes at least five contributions for urban form research.
1000 Friends of Oregon . 1993. Making the land use transportation air quality connection, Vol. 4A: The pedestrian environment. Portland, OR: LUTRAQ, with Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Calthorpe Associates, and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas.
2.
Alexander, C.1977. A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Appleyard, D.1981. Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Bagley, M.N. , and P.L. Mokhtarian. 1999. The role of lifestyle and attitudinal characteristics in residential neighborhood choice. 14th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Oxford, UK.
5.
Bagley, M.N., P.L. Mokhtarian, and R. Kitamura. 2000. A methodology for the disaggregate, multidimensional measurement of residential neighborhood type. Working paper, University of California, Davis.
6.
Banerjee, T. , and W.C. Baer. 1984. Beyond the neighborhood unit: Residential environments and public policy. New York: Plenum.
7.
Bernick, M. , and R. Cervero. 1997. Transit villages in the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Boarnet, M.G. , and M.J. Greenwald. 2000. Land use, urban design, and non-work travel: Reproducing other urban areas' empirical test results in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record1722: 27-37.
9.
Boarnet, M.G. , and S. Sarmiento. 1998. Can land-use policy really affect travel behavior? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies35 (7): 1155-69.
10.
Cervero, R.1989. America's suburban centers: The land use-transportation link. Boston: Unwin-Hyman.
11.
- . 1993. Transit-supportive development in the United States: Experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.
12.
- . 1996. Mixed land uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research A30 (5): 361-77.
13.
Cervero, R. , and R. Gorham. 1995. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association61 (2): 210-25.
14.
Cervero, R. , and K. Kockelman. 1997. Travel demand and the three Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research, Part D2 (2): 199-219.
15.
Cervero, R. , and C. Radisch. 1996. Travel choice in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy3 (3): 127-41.
16.
Clifton, K. , and S. Handy. 1998. Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: Issues and methods using geographic information systems. Pasadena, CA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
17.
Crane, R.1996. On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it?Journal of Planning Education and Research15 (2): 117-26.
18.
- . 2000. The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretative review. Journal of Planning Literature15 (1): 3-23.
19.
Crane, R. , and R. Crepeau. 1998. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment3 (4): 225-38.
20.
Downs, A.1992. Stuck in traffic: Coping with peak-hour congestion. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
21.
Dueker, K.J. , and M.J. Bianco. 1999. Light-rail-transit impacts in Portland: The first ten years. Transportation Research Record1685: 171-80.
22.
Ewing, R.1995. Beyond density, mode choice, and single purpose trips. Transportation Quarterly49 (4): 15-24.
23.
Ewing, R. , P. Haliyur, and G.W. Page. 1994. Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between. Transportation Research Record1466: 53-62.
24.
Frank, L.D. , and G. Pivo. 1994a. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record1466: 44-52.
25.
Frank, L.D. , B. Stone, and W. Bachman. 2000. Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the Central Puget Sound: Methodological framework and findings. Transportation Research D5: 173-96.
26.
Friedman, B. , S. Gordon, and J.B. Peers. 1994. Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record1466: 63-70.
27.
Gehl, J.1987. Life between buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
28.
Guy, C.M.1983. The assessment of access to local shopping opportunities: A comparison of accessibility measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design10: 219-38.
29.
Handy, S.L.1992. Regional versus local accessibility: Neotraditional development and its implications for non-work travel. Built Environment18 (4): 253-67.
30.
- . 1996a. Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research15 (3): 183-98.
31.
- . 1996b. Urban form and pedestrian choices: Study of Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record1552: 135-44.
32.
Hanson, S. , and M. Schwab. 1987. Accessibility and intraurban travel. Environment and Planning A19: 735-48.
33.
Hess, P.M. , and A.V. Moudon. 2000. Measuring land use patterns for transportation research. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
34.
Hess, P.M. , A.V. Moudon, M.C. Snyder, and K. Stanilov. 1999. Site design and pedestrian travel. Transportation Research Record1674: 9-19.
35.
Holtzclaw, J.1994. Using residential patterns and transit to decrease auto dependence and costs. San Francisco: Natural Resources Defense Council.
36.
Kitamura, R. , P.L. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet. 1997. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation24: 125-58.
37.
Kockelman, K.M.1996. Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance. In City and regional planning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38.
Kulash, W. , J. Anglin. 1990. Traditional neighborhood development-Will the traffic work?Washington, DC: Real Estate Research Consultants.
39.
Lansing, J.B. , R.W. Marans, and R.B. Zehner. 1970. Planned residential environments. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-Brumfield.
40.
Lawton, T.K. 1997. The urban environment effects and a discussion of travel time budget. Portland Transportation Summit, Portland, OR.
41.
Levine, J. , A. Inam, and G.-W. Torng. 2000. Innovation in transportation and land use as expansion of household choice. Atlanta, GA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
42.
Lu, M.1998. Analyzing migration decisionmaking: Relationships between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behavior. Environment and Planning30A: 1473-95.
43.
LUTRAQ . 1993. The LUTRAQ alternative/analysis of alternatives. Portland, OR: LUTRAQ, with Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Calthorpe Associates, and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas.
44.
Lynch, K.1962. Site planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
- . 1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission . 1993. Transit and pedestrian oriented neighborhood study. Silver Spring: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
47.
McNally, M.G. , and A. Kulkarni. 1997. Assessment of influence of land use-transportation system on travel behavior. Transportation Research Record1607: 105-15.
48.
Messenger, T. , and R. Ewing. 1996. Transit-oriented development in the Sunbelt: Get real (and empirical). Paper presented at the seventy-fifth annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
49.
Moudon, A.V. , and P.M. Hess. 2000. Suburban clusters: The nucleation of multifamily housing in suburban areas of the Central Puget Sound. Journal of the American Planning Association66 (3): 243-64.
50.
Moudon, A.V. , P.M. Hess, M.C. Snyder, and K. Stanilov. 1997. Effects of site design on pedestrian travel in mixed use, medium-density environments. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Record.
51.
Owens, P.M.1993. Neighborhood form and pedestrian life: Taking a closer look. Landscape and Urban Planning26: 115-35.
52.
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade , and I. Douglas. 2000. Data collection and modeling requirements for assessing transportation impacts of microscale design. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
53.
Perry, C.1929. The neighborhood unit. In Neighborhood and community planning. New York: Regional Planning Association.
54.
Pushkarev, B. , and J. Zupan. 1977. Public transportation and land use policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
55.
Rapaport, A.1987. Pedestrian street use: Culture and perception. In Public streets for public use, edited by A.V. Moudon. New York: Columbia University Press.
56.
Replogle, M.1995. Integrating pedestrian and bicycle factors into regional transportation planning models: Summary of the state-of-the-art and suggested steps forward. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund.
57.
Rossi, T.F. , K. Lawton, and K.H. Kim. 1993. Revision of travel demand models to enable analysis of atypical land use patterns. Paper presented at the fourth national conference on Transportation Planning Methods Applications, Transportation Research Board.
58.
Rutherford, G.S. , E. McCormack, and M. Wilkinson. 1996. Travel impacts of urban form: Implications from an analysis of two Seattle area travel diaries. Paper presented at the Urban Design, Telecommuting and Travel Forecasting Conference, Williamsburg, VA.
59.
Steiner, R.L.1994. Residential density and travel patterns: Review of the literature. Transportation Research Record1466: 37-43.
60.
Sun, A. , and C.G. Wilmot. 1998. Household travel, household characteristics, and land use. Transportation Research Record1617: 10-17.
61.
Tri-Met . 1993. Planning and design for transit. Portland: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon.
62.
Waddell, P.1997. Household choice and urban structure. Brookfield, UK: Ashgate.
63.
- . 1998. An urban simulation model for integrated policy analysis and planning: Residential location and housing market components of UrbanSim. Paper presented at the eighth World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp, Belgium.
64.
Whyte, W.1988. City: Rediscovering the center. New York: Doubleday.
