Research on nonwork automobile trip generation and land use previously conducted by researchers is replicated for the Portland, Oregon, region. Additionally, new variables examining new urbanist arguments are incorporated. The results suggest that any links between land use and nonwork trip behavior act primarily by influencing trip costs, in terms of distances traveled and speeds achieved, rather than directly influencing the number of trips made. This analysis is consistent with the other research, suggesting that this model is not sensitive to errors that might arise due to the unique characteristics of the urban area under review.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoarnetM., and SarmientoS.. Can Land-Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behaviour? A Study of the Link Between Non-Work Travel and Land-Use Characteristics. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1155–1169.
2.
BoarnetM., and CraneR.. The Influence of Land Use on Travel Behavior: Empirical Strategies. Working Paper 1998-59. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine, 1998.
3.
CraneR., and CrepeauR.. Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel? A Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data. Transportation Research D: Transportation and Environment 3, No. 4, July1998, pp. 225–238.
4.
Cambridge Systems, Inc.Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection, Vol. 4: Model Modifications. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, 1996.
5.
DuanyA., and Plater-ZyberkE.. Towns and Town Making Principles. Rizzoli Press, New York, 1991.
6.
KatzP.The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
7.
CalthorpeP.The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1993.
8.
CraneR.Measuring the Impacts of Urban Form on Travel: Pitfalls and Promises. Working Paper. Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass., 1999.
9.
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., 1995, pp. 53–62.
10.
FrankL. and PivoG.. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single Occupancy Vehicle, Transit and Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 44–52.
11.
CerveroR. and GorhamR.. Commuting in Transit Versus Automobile Neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 2, 1995, pp. 210–225.
12.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity and Design. Transportation Research D: Transportation and Environment 2, No. 3, Sept.1997, pp. 199–219.
13.
HandyS.Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Nonwork Travel Behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1996, pp. 183–198.
14.
BoarnetM., and CraneR.. Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. Oxford University Press, in press.
15.
CraneR.On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It?Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1996, pp. 117–126.
16.
KitamuraR.A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 125–158.
17.
CraneR.Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in Neotraditional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, 1996, pp. 51–65.
18.
LinnemanP., and GravesP.. Migration and Job Change: A Multinomial Logit Approach. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 14, 1983, pp. 263–279.
19.
QuigleyJ., and WeinbergD.. Intra-Urban Mobility: A Review and Synthesis. International Regional Science Review, Vol. 2, 1977, pp. 41–66.
20.
SarmientoS.Studiesin Transportation and Residential Mobility. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, 1977.
