Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American housing survey

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 30, Issue 5 PART A, 1996, Pages 361-377

  Cervero, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FORECASTING; LAND USE; MASS TRANSPORTATION; RETAIL STORES; SHOPPING CENTERS; TRANSPORTATION ROUTES; URBAN PLANNING;

MASS TRANSIT; MIXED LAND-USES AND COMMUTING; RETAIL ACTIVITIES;

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION;

COMMUTING BEHAVIOUR; MIXED LAND USE; RESIDENTS' CHOICE; RETAILING ROLE;

USA;

EID: 0030302154     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0965-8564(95)00033-X     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aldrich J. and Nelson F. (1984) Linear Probability, Logil, and Probit Models. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
2. Barton-Aschman Associates (1983) Shared parking demand for selected land uses. Urban Land 42, 12-17.
3. Cervero R. (1988) Land-use mixing and suburban mobility. Transpn Q. 42, 429-446.
4. Cervero R. (1991) Land uses and travel at suburban activity centers. Transpn Q. 45, 479-491.
5. Cervero R. (1994) Transit-based housing in California: evidence on ridership impacts. Transpn. Pol. 1, 174-183.
6. Cervero R. and Menotti V. (1994) Market Profiles of Rail-Based Housing Projects in California. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley. Working Paper 622.
7. Colorado/Wyoming Section Technical Committee, Institute of Transportation Engineers (1987) Trip generation for mixed use developments. ITE J. 57, 27-29.
8. Dunphy R. and Fisher K. (1994) Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights. Washington D.C.: Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
9. Ewing R., Haliyur P. and Page G. (1994) Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between. Transpn Res. Rec. 1466, 53-62.
10. Frank L. and Pivo G. (1994) The impacts of mixed use and density on the utilization of three modes of travel: the single occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transpn Res. Rec. 1466, 44-52.
11. Hadden L. and Leger M. (1990) Codebook for the American Housing Survey. Abt Associates, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
12. Handy S. (1992) Regional versus local accessibility: neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel. Built Envir. 18, 253-267.
13. Holtzclaw J. (1994) Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs. San Francisco: National Resources Defense Council, unpublished.
14. Holtzclaw J. (1990) Manhattanization versus Sprawl: How Density Impacts Auto Use Comparing Five Bay Area Communities. Proc. Eleventh Int. Pedestrian Conf. City of Boulder, Boulder, pp. 99-106.
15. Institute of Transportation Engineers (1991) Trip Generation, ITE. 5th edition. Washington D.C.
16. McFadden D. (1978) Choice of residential location. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (Karlqvist A. et al., Eds). North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 75-96.
17. Newman P. and Kenworthy J. (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of U.S. cities with a global survey. J. Am. Planning Ass. 55, 24-37.
18. Pucher J. (1988) Urban travel behavior as the outcome of public policy. J. Am. Plann. Ass. 54, 509-520.
19. Pushkarev B. and Zupan J. (1977) Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
20. Pushkarev B. and Zupan J. (1980) Urban Rail in America. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
21. Shoup D. (1995) An opportunity to reduce minimum parking requirements. J. Am. Plann. Ass. 61, 14-28.
22. Voith R. (1991) Transportation, sorting, and house values. Am. Real Est. Urb Econ. Ass. J. 19, 117-137.
23. White Mountain Survey Company (1991) City of Portsmouth Traffic/Trip Generation Study. Ossippeee, New Hampshire: White Mountain Survey Company, unpublished.