Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay area

Transportation

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 373-394

  Cervero, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Land use; Matched pairs; Modal splits; Neo traditional; Transit oriented

Indexed keywords

AUTOMOBILES; BICYCLES; BUS TRANSPORTATION; MASS TRANSPORTATION; MOTOR TRANSPORTATION; PUBLIC POLICY; REGIONAL PLANNING;

MATCHED PAIRS; MODAL SPLITS; NEO TRADITIONAL; SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA; TRANSIT ORIENTED;

LAND USE;

COMMUTING; NEOTRADITIONAL DESIGN; POLICY NEED; TRANSPORT PLANNING; TRIP MAKING; URBAN DESIGN; URBAN TRAVEL;

USA, CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO BAY;

EID: 0030291951     PISSN: 00494488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00223062     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bookout L (1992) Neotraditional Town Planning. Urban Land 51, 2: 10-15.
2. Calthorpe P (1993) The Next American Metropolis. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.
3. Cervero R (1984) Managing the Traffic Impacts of Suburban Office Growth. Transportation Quarterly 38, 4: 533-550.
4. Cervero R (1986) Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University Press.
5. Cervero R (1993) Transit-Supportive Development in the United States: Experiences and Prospects. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.
6. Demoro H (1985) The Key Route: Transbay Commuting by Train and Ferry. Glendale, California: Interurban Press.
7. Fehrs and Peers Assocites (1992) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Trip Rate Survey Analysis. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California.
8. Fishman R (1987) Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. Basic Book, New York.
9. Fogelson R (1967) The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles 1850-1930. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
10. Hall P (1988) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basil Blackwell.
11. Handy S (1992) Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and its Implications for Non-work Travel. Built Environment 18, 4: 253-267.
12. Harrison D (1978) The Impact of Transit Systems on Land Use Patterns in the Pre-Automobile Era. Cambridge: Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, Discussion Paper D78-21.
13. Howard E (1898) To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. London: Swan Sonnenschein.
14. Iackson K (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, New York.
15. Kulash W, Anglin J & Marks D (1990) Traditional Neighborhood Development - Will the Traffic Work? Real Estate Research Consultants, Washington, D.C.
16. Lerner-Lam E, Celniker S, Halbert G, Chellman C & Ryan S (1992) Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design and Its Implications for Traffic Engineering. ITE Journal 22, 1: 17-24.
17. MNCPPC - Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (1992) Transit and Pedestrian Oriented Neighborhoods. Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring.
18. McNally M & Ryan S (1992) A Comparative Assessment of Travel Characteristics of Neo-Traditional Developments. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine.
19. Middleton W (1967) The Time of the Trolley. Milwaukee: Kalmback Publishing.
20. Pisarski A (1992) Travel Behavior Issues in the 90's. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
21. Rabinowitz H, Beimborn E, Mrotek C & Gugliotta P (1991) Guidelines for Transit-Sensitive Suburban Land Use Designs. Washington, D.C.: Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
22. Schaeffer K & Sclar E (1980) Access for All. New York: Columbia University Press.
23. Stone J & Johnson C (1992) Neo-Traditional Neighborhoods: A Solution to Traffic Congestion? In: Paaswell E (ed) Site Impact Traffic Assessment Conference Proceedings. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
24. Warner S (1962) Street Car Suburbs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
25. White Mountain Survey Company (1990) City of Portsmouth Traffic/Trip Generation Study. White Mountain Survey Company, Ossippee, New Hampshire.