INFLUENCE OF URBAN FORM CHARACTERISTICS ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOR: EVIDENCE FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS

Authors

  • Mostaq Ahmed Urban and Rural Planning Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna-9208, Bangladesh; Department of Community and Regional Planning, The University of Texas at Austin, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53808/KUS.2022.19.02.2138-se

Keywords:

Built environment, land use, mode choice, discrete choice, mixed land use, transit

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between the physical form of the built environment and how people travel from origin to destination is vital to formulate policies to reduce the distance traveled and promote public transit. This study has used Austin activity-travel survey data to explore the influence of urban form characteristics on travel behavior. It has been hypothesized that mixed-use high-density development significantly impacts people's travel behavior in this area. Urban form variables like increase in density, better street connectivity, and mixed land use TAZ as origin and destination have been found to be significant in reducing the distance traveled and car dependency. Even after controlling the trip makers' and alternative specific characteristics, urban built form is showing a clear and strong impact on mode choice behavior. Though personal characteristics remain important after including the built form variables, built form variables also show significant influence on mode choice behavior. The results support the hypothesis of this study that mixed-use high-density development has a significant impact on the mode choice behavior of the people of the Austin area. These findings suggest that transportation policy formulation is not only an economic decision but also a land use planning decision. City authorities aiming to reduce automobile trips and distance travelled need to consider these built form characteristics to determine suitable areas to invest to yield the highest return in promoting transit use and active transportation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ardeshiri, A., & Vij, A. (2019). A lifestyle-based model of household neighbourhood location and individual travel mode choice behaviours. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01986.

Ben-Akiva, M. & Ben-Akiva, M. E., Lerman, S. R., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand (Vol. 9). MIT press.

Boarnet, M. G., & Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of urban form on travel. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Boarnet, M. G., & 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 studies, 35(7), 1155-1169.

Brownstone, D., & Golob, T. F. (2009). The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Journal of urban Economics, 65(1), 91-98.

Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2007). Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation, 34(5), 535-556.

Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts of residential self‐selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings. Transport reviews, 29(3), 359-395.

Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(5), 361-377.

Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation research part D: Transport and environment, 2(3), 199-219.

Dunphy, R. T., & Fisher, K. (1996). Transportation, congestion, and density: new insights. Transportation Research Record, 1552(1), 89-96.

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transportation research record, 1780(1), 87-114.

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American planning association, 76(3), 265-294.

Ewing, R., Greenwald, M. J., Zhang, M., Walters, J., Feldman, M., Cervero, R., & Thomas, J. (2009). Measuring the impact of urban form and transit access on mixed use site trip generation rates—Portland pilot study. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Ewing, R. H., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. D. (2002). Measuring sprawl and its impact (Vol. 1, p. 55). Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.

Ewing, R., & McCann, B. (2003). Measuring the health effects of sprawl: A national analysis of physical activity, obesity and chronic disease.

Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J., & Lawton, T. K. (2008). Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation, 35(1), 37-54.

Kain, J. F., Fauth, G. R., & Ingram, G. K. (1976). The Impacts of Urban Land Use and Transportation Investments on Household Auto Ownership Decisions and Journey to Work Mode Choices. Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University.

Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Laidet, L. (1997). A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, 24(2), 125-158.

Kockelman, K. M. (1997). Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation research record, 1607(1), 116-125.

Koppelman, F. S., & Bhat, C. (2006). A self instructing course in mode choice modeling: multinomial and nested logit models.

Næss, P. (2012). Urban form and travel behavior: Experience from a Nordic context. Journal of Transport and Land use, 5(2), 21-45.

Nasri, A. A. (2016). The influence of urban form at different geographical scales on travel behavior; evidence from US cities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park).

Nasri, A., & Zhang, L. (2019). How Urban Form Characteristics at Both Trip Ends Influence Mode Choice: Evidence from TOD vs. Non-TOD Zones of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. Sustainability, 11(12), 3403.

Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence. Island press.

Ortúzar, J., & Willumsen, L. G. (2011). Modelling transport. John wiley & sons.

Vance, C., & Hedel, R. (2007). The impact of urban form on automobile travel: disentangling causation from correlation. Transportation, 34(5), 575-588.

Walker, J. L., & Li, J. (2007). Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions. Journal of Geographical Systems, 9(1), 77-101.

Yang, J., & Ferreira Jr, J. (2008). Choices versus choice sets: A commuting spectrum method for representing job—housing possibilities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(2), 364-378.

Zahabi, S. A. H., Miranda-Moreno, L., Patterson, Z., & Barla, P. (2015). Spatio-temporal analysis of car distance, greenhouse gases and the effect of built environment: A latent class regression analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 1-13.

Zegras, C. (2010). The built environment and motor vehicle ownership and use: Evidence from Santiago de Chile. Urban Studies, 47(8), 1793-1817.

Downloads

Published

30-12-2022

How to Cite

[1]
M. . Ahmed, “INFLUENCE OF URBAN FORM CHARACTERISTICS ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOR: EVIDENCE FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS”, Khulna Univ. Stud., pp. 189–201, Dec. 2022.

Issue

Section

Science & Engineering

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.