A review of empirical studies of the effects of land use on travel behavior leads to the conclusion that increasing density and mix can decrease vehicle kilometers of travel. The authors’ research project for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is outlined. Descriptions of the travel model used in the first phase of this research and of the emissions model and the traveler welfare model used in the study are given. The authors describe the six scenarios evaluated to date and the results of the simulations for the year 2015 for travel, emissions, and traveler welfare.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnstonR. A., and CeerlaR.. Land Use and Transportation Alternatives. Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable Transportation System (SperlingD. and ShaheenS., ed.). American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C., 1995.
2.
Towards Sustainable Transportation: The Vancouver Conference. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1997.
3.
HoltzclawJ.Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs. Natural Resources Defense Council testimony before the California Energy Commission, June1994.
4.
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.
5.
NowlanD. M., and StewartG.. Downtown Population Growth and Commuting Trips: Recent Experience in Toronto. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57, 1991, pp. 165–182.
6.
FrankL. D., and PivoG.. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 44–52.
7.
DunphyR. T., and FisherK.. Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 89–96.
8.
CerveroR.Land-Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 42, 1988, pp. 429–446.
9.
CerveroR.Transit-Based Housing in California: Evidence on Ridership Impacts. Transport Policy, Vol. 1, 1994, pp. 174–183.
10.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc.TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban Form. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996.
11.
JHK and Associates. Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies To Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions: An Indirect Source Research Study. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, June1995.
12.
BrehenyM. J.The Contradictions of the Compact City: A Review. Sustainable Development and Urban Form (BrehenyM. J., ed.). Pion, London, 1992.
13.
Alternative Development Patterns: New Settlements. U.K. Department of the Environment. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1993.
14.
Reducing Transport Emissions Through Planning. U.K. Department of the Environment. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1993.
15.
Cambridge Systematics Inc.The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Management Strategies on Commuting Behavior. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1994.
16.
Urban Travel and Sustainable Development. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1997.
17.
SchimekP.Household Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: How Much Does Residential Density Matter? In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 120–125.
18.
GordonP., and RichardsonH. W.. Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 95–106.
19.
EwingR.Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 107–126.
20.
RodierC. J., and JohnstonR. A.. Travel, Emissions, and Welfare Effects of Travel Demand Management Measures. In Transportation Research Record 1598, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 18–24.
21.
DKS Associates. Model Development and User Reference Report. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento, Calif., Oct.1994.
22.
SmallK. A., and RosenH. S.. Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice. Econometrica, Vol. 49, 1981, pp. 105–130.
23.
DelucchiM. A.The Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the U.S., 1990–1991: Summary. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, June1997.
