Assessment of influence of land use-transportation system on travel behavior

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 1607, 1997, Pages 105-115

  McNally, Michael G ^a   Kulkarni, Anup ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001294292     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/1607-15     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Ryan, S., and M. G. McNally. Accessibility of Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Review of Design Concepts, Policies, and Recent Literature. Transportation Research A, Vol. 29A, No. 2, Feb. 1995, pp. 87-196.
2. Harvey, G., and E. Deakin. Air Quality and Transportation Planning: An Assessment of Recent Developments. Working Paper 92-74. University of California, Berkeley, 1992.
3. Giuliano, G. The Weakening Transportation-Land Use Connection. Access, Vol. 6, 1995, pp. 3-11.
4. ITE Technical Committee 5P-8. Traffic Engineering for Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Synthesis Report. Draft report. ITE Educational Foundation Seminar: Traffic Engineering for Neotraditional Neighborhoods, Washington, D.C., 1992.
5. Kulash, W. Traditional Neighborhood Development: Will the Traffic Work? Presented at the 11th International Pedestrian Conference, Bellevue, Wash., 1990.
6. McNally, M. G., and S. Ryan. Comparative Assessment of Travel Characteristics for Neotraditional Designs. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 67-77.
7. Stone, J., and C. Johnson. Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Solution to Traffic Congestion? In Site Impact Traffic Assessment: Problems and Solutions (R. E. Paaswell, ed.), ASCE, New York, 1992, pp. 72-76.
8. Middlesex-Somerset-Mercer Regional Council. The Impact of Various Land Use Strategies on Suburban Mobility. Report FTA-NJ-08-7001-93-1. FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992.
9. Pushkarev, B., and J. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1981.
10. Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey. APA Journal, Vol. 55, No. 1, Jan. 1989, pp. 23-39.
11. Holtzclaw, J. Explaining Urban Density and Transit Impacts on Auto Use. Report 89-CR-90. State of California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 1990.
12. Frank, L. D., and G. Pivo. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 44-52.
13. Handy, S. Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Non-Work Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58-66.
14. Friedman, B., S. Gordon, and J. Peers. Effect of Neotraditional Neighborhood Design on Travel Characteristics. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 63-70.
15. Cervero, R. Transit-Supportive Development in the United States: Experiences and Prospects. Report DOT-T-94-08. FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1993.
16. Handy, S., Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. Presented at 74th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.
17. Ewing, R., P. Haliyur, and G. W. Page. 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.
18. Kitamura, R., P. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet. A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Presented at 74th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.