Impact of Neighborhood Walkability on Trip Generation and Trip Chaining: Case of Los Angeles
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 142, Issue 3
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test whether a compact neighborhood design is associated with trip-chaining behavior. Trip chaining is regarded as a growing phenomenon in travel and activity behavior because people seek to minimize the travel time and cost required to accomplish their daily activities based on the available time budget and other needs. In this study, trip-chaining patterns were examined over a survey day, giving insight into the association between land use and the planning of the trip and its distance, as well as the preferred mode of transportation. A tour consists of a combination of individual trips, including all of the stops that are made along the way. A series of multivariate models was used separately for different types of tours segmented into simple (one destination) and complex (more than one destination), and into work and nonwork tours. The results confirmed the idea that trip chaining diminishes the likelihood of using nonmotorized modes of transportation. In addition, local land use and walkability have a limited effect on work-related tours, but these factors are significantly related to nonwork tours. A resident who lives in a more walkable neighborhood is likely to take simple, albeit more frequent nonwork tours and conduct their nonwork activities on foot or by public transport, which reduces their use of vehicles during the day. These findings lead to the conclusion that there is more opportunity to use urban design policies to influence nonwork tours than work tours.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This paper is the modified version of a part of the author’s dissertation, The built environment, tour complexity, and active travel. Data collection for this research was supported by the California Department of Transportation and the Southern California Association of Governments. The author thanks Genevieve Giuliano and Marlon Boarnet for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper and the anonymous referees for their careful review and useful questions. This work was supported by the Research Fund of University of Ulsan.
References
ArcGIS [Computer software]. ESRI, Redlands, CA.
Bagley, M. N., and Mokhtarian, P. L. (2002). “The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach.” Ann. Reg. Sci., 36(2), 279–297.
Bento, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Mobarak, A. M., and Vinha, K. (2005). “The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States.” Rev. Econ. Stat., 87(3), 466–478.
Bhat, C. R., and Guo, J. Y. (2007). “A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels.” Transp. Res. Part B: Method., 41(5), 506–526.
Bhat, C. R., and Koppelman, F. S. (1999). “Activity-based modeling of travel demand.” Handbook of transportation science, Springer, New York, 35–61.
Boarnet, M., and Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of urban form on travel, Oxford University Press, New York.
Boarnet, M. G., and Sarmiento, S. (1998). “Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics.” Urban Stud., 35(7), 1155–1169.
Bowman, J. L., and Ben-Akiva, M. E. (2001). “Activity-based disaggregate travel demand model system with activity schedules.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., 35(1), 1–28.
Brownstone, D., and Golob, T. F. (2009). “The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption.” J. Urban Econ., 65(1), 91–98.
Cervero, R., and Radisch, C. (1996). “Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods.” Transp. Policy, 3(3), 127–141.
de Nazelle, A., Morton, B. J., Jerrett, M., and Crawford-Brown, D. (2010). “Short trips: An opportunity for reducing mobile-source emissions?” Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ., 15(8), 451–457.
Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J., and Lawton, T. K. (2008). “Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice.” Transportation, 35(1), 37–54.
Frank, L. D., et al. (2010). “The development of a walkability index: Application to the neighborhood quality of life study.” Br. J. Sports Med., 44(13), 924–933.
Ha, E., Joo, Y., and Jun, C. (2011). “An empirical study on sustainable walkability indices for transit-oriented development by using the analytic network process approach.” Int. J. Urban Sci., 15(2), 137–146.
Hägerstraand, T. (1970). “What about people in regional science?” Reg. Sci., 24(1), 7–24.
Handy, S. (1993). “Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for nonwork travel.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1400, 58–66.
Handy, S., Cao, X., and Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). “Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: Empirical evidence from northern California.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 72(1), 55–74.
Hansen, W. (1959). “How accessibility shapes land use.” J. Am. Inst. Plann., 25(2), 73–76.
Hausman, J., and McFadden, D. (1984). “Specification tests for the multinomial logit model.” Econometrica: J. Econ. Soc., 52(5), 1219–1240.
Kim, S., Choi, J., and Kim, S. (2013). “Roadside walking environments and major factors affecting pedestrian level of service.” Int. J. Urban Sci., 17(3), 304–315.
Kitamura, R. (1988). “An evaluation of activity-based travel analysis.” Transportation, 15(1), 9–34.
Krizek, K. J. (2003a). “Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel.” Transportation, 30(4), 387–410.
Krizek, K. J. (2003b). “Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling.” J. Plann. Educ. Res., 22(3), 270–287.
Krygsman, S., Theo, A., and Timmermans, H. (2007). “Capturing tour mode and activity choice interdependencies: A co-evolutionary logit modelling approach.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., 41(10), 913–933.
Lee, J. (2013). “Perceived neighborhood environment and transit use in low-income populations.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 2397(1), 125–134.
Maat, K., and Timmermans, H. (2006). “Influence of land use on tour complexity: A Dutch case.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 1977(1), 234–241.
Maat, K., Van Wee, B., and Stead, D. (2005). “Land use and travel behaviour: Expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories.” Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des., 32(1), 33–46.
Næss, P. (2009). “Residential self-selection and appropriate control variables in land use: Travel studies.” Transp. Rev., 29(3), 293–324.
NHTS-CA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration California). (2009). 〈http://nhts.ornl.gov/〉.
O’Sullivan, S., and Morrall, J. (1996). “Walking distances to and from light-rail transit stations.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 1538, 19–26.
Owen, N., et al. (2007). “Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults.” Am. J. Preventive Med., 33(5), 387–395.
Rasouli, S., and Timmermans, H. (2014). “Activity-based models of travel demand: Promises, progress and prospects.” Int. J. Urban Sci., 18(1), 31–60.
Rosenbloom, S. (1989). “Trip chaining behaviour: A comparative and cross cultural analysis of the travel patterns of working mothers.” Gender, Transport and Employment, Gower Publishing Company, U.K., 75–87.
Rosenbloom, S. (2006). “Understanding women’s and men’s travel patterns.” Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Rep. of a Conf., Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 7–28.
Saelens, B., Sallis, J., and Frank, L. (2003). “Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures.” Ann. Behav. Med., 25(2), 80–91.
Sallis, J. F., et al. (2009). “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes.” Soc. Sci. Med., 68(7), 1285–1293.
Shaheen, S. A., Bejamin-Chung, J., Allen, D., and Howe-Steiger, L. (2009). “Achieving California’s land use and transportation greenhouse gas emission targets under AB 32: An exploration of potential policy processes and mechanisms.” Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
Shiftan, Y. (2008). “The use of activity-based modeling to analyze the effect of land-use policies on travel behavior.” Ann. Reg. Sci., 42(1), 79–97.
Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Kawakami, N., Skog, L., Ohlsson, H., and Arvidsson, D. (2011). “Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: The Swedish neighborhood and physical activity (SNAP) study.” Soc. Sci. Med., 72(8), 1266–1273.
Ye, X., Pendyala, R. M., and Gottardi, G. (2007). “An exploration of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns.” Transp. Res. Part B: Method., 41(1), 96–113.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 142 • Issue 3 • September 2016
Copyright
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 3, 2014
Accepted: Aug 10, 2015
Published online: Nov 4, 2015
Discussion open until: Apr 4, 2016
Published in print: Sep 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.