This study evaluates how successful smart growth policies in Portland, best known for its smart growth policies such as the urban growth boundary, extensive public transit service, and transit-oriented developments along the transit corridors, are in achieving one of their policy objectives, a reduction of automobile dependence. Empirical evidence reveals that more diversified land use in neighborhoods, more extensive provision of public transit service, and decreasing accessibility to freeway interchanges were associated with fewer choices of driving alone, while making settlements compact via the urban growth boundary and transit-oriented developments has no clear relationship with reducing the choice to drive alone. Empirical analyses also suggest that provision of public transit service and mixed land use implemented at residential zones (origins) were more effective in reducing automobile dependence than those implemented at places of work (destinations).
Allison, Paul D.1999. Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application . Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
2.
American Planning Association.2002. Policy guide on smart growth. Available at http://www.planning.org/policyguides/SmartGrowth.pdf
3.
Cervero, R.2002. Built environments and mode choice: Toward a normative framework. Transportation Research, Part D, 7:265-84.
4.
Cervero, R., and R. Gorham1995. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. Journal of American Planning Association61:210-25.
5.
Cox, W.2001. American dream boundaries: Urban containment and its consequences . Available at www.gppf.org/pubs/analyses/2001
6.
Crane, R.1999. The impacts of urban form on travel: A critical review (Working paper WP99RC1). Boston: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
7.
Downs, Anthony.2005. Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of American Planning Association71 (4): 367-78.
8.
Dueker, K.J., and M.J. Bianco.1999. Light rail transit impacts in Portland: The first ten years. Transportation Research Record1685:171-80.
9.
Ewing, R., and R. Cervero.2001. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record1780:87-114.
10.
Federal Highway Administration.2003. Journey to work trends in the United States and its major metropolitan areas, 1960-2000. Publication No. FHWA -EP-03-058. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/
11.
Frank, Lawrence D., and Gary Pivo.1994. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record1466:44-52.
12.
Friedman, B., S.P. Gordon, and J.B. Peers.1994. Effect of neo-traditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record1466:63-70.
13.
Giuliano, G.1995. The weakening transportation-land use connection. Access6:3-11.
14.
Gordon, D., and S. Vipond.2005. Gross density and new urbanism: Comparing conventional and new urbanist suburbs in Karkham, Ontario. Journal of American Planning Association71 (1): 41-54.
15.
Gordon, P., and H.W. Richardson .1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of American Planning Association63 (1): 95-106.
16.
Gordon, P., and H.W. Richardson .1998. Prove it: The costs and benefits of sprawl. The Brookings Review16 (4): 23-26.
17.
Handy, Susan.1996. Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research, Part D, 1:151-65.
18.
Handy, Susan.2005. Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review28 (2): 146-67.
19.
Hess, D.2001. Effect of free parking on commuter mode choice: Evidence from travel diary data. Transportation Research Record1753:35-42 .
20.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., and Wan, C.K.1990. Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Jun, Myung-Jin.2004. The effects of Portland's urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting. Urban Studies41 (7):1333-48.
22.
Kennedy, Peter.1985. A guide to econometrics, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
Kitamura R., P.L. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet.1997. A microanalysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation24:125-58.
24.
Kline, J., and R. Alig.1999. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm lands? Growth and Change30:3-22.
25.
Nelson, A.C., and T. Moore.1993. Assessing urban growth management: The case of Portland, Oregon, the USA's largest urban growth boundary, Land Use Policy10:293-302.
26.
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates.1995. Land use and transit demand: The transit orientation index. Chapter 3 of Primary Transit Network Study . Portland, OR: Tri-Met.
27.
Newman, Peter, and Jeffrey Kenworthy .1989. Gasoline consumption and cities: A comparison of U.S. cities with a global survey. Journal of American Planning Association55:24-37.
28.
Newman, Peter, and Jeffrey Kenworthy .1999. Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press .
29.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas.1996 . Public policy and transit oriented development: Six international case studies. Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Report 16, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
30.
Pucher, John, and John L. Renne.2004. Urban-rural differences in mobility and mode choice: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Working Paper, Rutgers University. Available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/articles/UrbanRural.pdf
31.
Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan .1977. Public transportation and land use policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
32.
Rajamani, J., C.R. Bhat, S. Handy, G. Knaap, and Y. Song.2003. Assessing impact of urban form measures on nonwork trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects. Transportation Research Record1831:158-65.
33.
Richardson, H.W., and P. Gordon.2001. Portland and Los Angeles: Beauty and the beast. Paper presented at the 17th Pacific Regional Science Conference, Portland.
34.
Seskin, S., and R. Cervero.1996. Transit and urban form. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration.
35.
Staley, S.R., J.D. Edgens, and G.C.S. Mildner.1999. A line in the land: Urban-growth boundaries, smart growth, and housing afford-ability. Policy Study No. 263, Reason Public Policy Institute.
36.
Transportation Research Board.1996. Transit and urban form. TCRP Report 16. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
37.
Tri-Met.2005. Community building source book: Land use and transportation initiatives in Portland, Oregon. Portland: Author. Available at www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/tod/report-trimet.pdf
38.
U.S. Census Bureau.1990. Summary tape file 3, census of population and housing. [Data files]. Retrieved from http://ftp.census.gov/census_1990/
39.
U.S. Census Bureau.2000. Summary tape file 3, census of population and housing. [Data files]. Retrieved from http://ftp.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Summary_File_3/
40.
U.S. Department of Transportation.1990. Census transportation planning package 1990. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. [Data files]. Retrieved from http://www.transtats.bts.gov/
41.
U.S. Department of Transportation.2000. Census transportation planning package 2000. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. [Data files] Retrieved from http://www.transtats.bts.gov/
42.
Zhang, Ming.2004. The role of land use in travel mode choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of American Planning Association70 (3): 344-60.
