Density and the journey to work

Growth and Change

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 147-172

  Levinson, David M ^a   Kumar, Ajay ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b WORLD BANK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUTING BEHAVIOUR; RESIDENTIAL DENSITY;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COMMUTING; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; DISTANCE; ECONOMIC FACTORS; ECONOMICS; GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS; GEOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; NORTH AMERICA; NORTHERN AMERICA; POPULATION; POPULATION DENSITY; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT; UNITED STATES; URBAN POPULATION; URBAN SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; WESTERN HEMISPHERE;

AMERICAS; BEHAVIOR; COMMUTING; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; DISTANCE; ECONOMIC FACTORS; GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS; NORTH AMERICA; NORTHERN AMERICA; POPULATION; POPULATION DENSITY; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES; URBAN SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

AMERICAS; BEHAVIOR; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; ECONOMICS; GEOGRAPHY; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; NORTH AMERICA; POPULATION; POPULATION DENSITY; TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES; URBAN POPULATION;

USA;

EID: 0031450361     PISSN: 00174815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.1997.tb00768.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bae, C.-H.C. 1993. Air quality and travel behavior: Untying the knot. Journal of the American Planning Association 59(1): 65-74.
2. Cervero, Robert. 1989. Jobs-housing balance and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(2): 136-50.
3. Dunphy, R.T., and K. Fisher. 1994. Transportation, congestion, and density: New insights. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute.
4. Frank, L.D., and G. Pivo. 1994. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single occupant vehicle, transit and walking. Transportation Research Record 1466: 44-52.
5. Garreau, J. 1991. Edge cities: Life on the new frontier. New York: Doubleday.
6. Giuliano, G., and K.A. Small. 1991. Subcenters in the Los Angeles Region. Regional Science and Urban Economics 21: 163-82.
7. _. 1993. Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Studies 30(9): 1485-1500.
8. Goodwin, P. 1975. Variations in travel between individuals living in areas of different population density. Proceeding of a Seminar on Urban Traffic Models, July 7-11, Planning and Transportation Research and Computation (PTRC) Summer Annual Meeting, University of Warwick, England. London: Planning and Transport Research and Computation (International) (June).
9. Gordon P., H.W. Richardson, and H.L. Wong. 1986. The distribution of population and employment in a polycentric city: The case of Los Angeles, Environment and Planning A 18: 161-173.
10. Gordon P., A. Kumar, and H.W. Richardson. 1989a Congestion, changing metropolitan structure and city size in the U.S. International Regional Science Review 12(1): 45-56.
11. _. 1989b. The influence of metropolitan spatial structure on commuting times. Journal of Urban Economics 26: 138-49.
12. _. 1989c. Gender differences in metropolitan travel behavior, Regional Studies 23(6): 499-510.
13. Greene, D. 1980. Urban Subcenters: Recent trends in urban spatial structure, Growth and Change 11(1): 29-40.
14. Handy, S. 1993. Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for non-work travel, presented at 72nd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
15. Hanks, J.W., and T.J. Lomax. 1993. Roadway congestion estimates and trends. Research Report 1131-4. Texas Transportation Institute, July.
16. Heikkila, E.P. J.I. Gordon, R.B. Kim, H.W. Peiser, H.W. Richardson, and D. DaleJohnson. 1989. What happened to the CBD-distance gradient?. Land Values in a polycentric city, Environment and Planning A 21: 221-232.
17. Isard, W. 1956. Location and Space Economy, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 76.
18. Levinson, D., and A. Kumar, 1995a. A multimodal trip distribution model: Structure and application. Transportation Research Record # 1466: 124-31.
19. _. 1995b. Activity, travel, and the allocation of time, Journal of the American Planning Association 61(4): 458-470.
20. McDonald, J.F. 1987. The identification of urban employment subcenters, Journal of Urban Economics 21: 242-258.
21. McDonald, J.F., and P. Prather. 1994. Suburban employment centers: The case of Chicago, Urban Studies 31: 201-218.
22. Mills, E.S. 1972. Studies in the structure of urban economy Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
23. Mitchelson, R.L., and J.O. Wheeler. 1986. Analysis of aggregate flows: The Atlanta case, in The geography of urban transportation, edited by S. Hanson. New York: Guilford Press.
24. Newman P.W.G., and J.R. Kenworthy. 1992. Is there a role for physical planners? Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 353-362.
25. Pas, Eric I. 1980. Toward the understanding of urban travel behavior through the classification of daily urban travel/activity patterns. Dissertation: UMI-81- 04755.
26. Pushkarev, B., and J. Zupan. 1977. Public transportation and land use policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
27. Richardson, H. 1973. The economics of urban size. London: Saxon House.
28. Scott, A.J. 1988. Metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29. Sivitanidou, R. 1995. Do office firms value access to service employment centers? A hedonic value analysis within polycentric Los Angeles? presented at 34th Annual Meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, San Diego CA, Feb. 22-26.
30. Steiner, R. 1994. Residential density and travel patterns: Review of the literature. Transportation Research Record 1466: 37-43.
31. Smerk, G.M. 1991 The federal role in urban mass transportation. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
32. United States Bureau of Census. 1984. Population and land area of urbanized areas for the United States and Puerto Rico. PC80-S1-14, Washington DC .
33. _. 1991. Census Press Release 2.21.1991 CB91-66, Washington DC.
34. United States Department of Transportation. 1990. Nationwide personal transportation survey. Washington DC.
35. Voorhees and Associates. 1968. Factors and trends in trip lengths, National Cooperative Highway Research Report # 48. Washington DC.