Transportation-land-use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 235-263

  Badoe, Daniel A ^a   Miller, Eric J ^b  

^a Tennessee Technological University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Land use; Neighborhood design; Residential density; Transit supply

Indexed keywords

LAND USE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PUBLIC POLICY; REGIONAL PLANNING; URBAN PLANNING;

NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN; TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE INTERACTIONS;

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION;

CAR OWNERSHIP; CAR USE; LAND USE; MODELING; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 0034066423     PISSN: 13619209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abouchar, A., 1973. The Analysis of Property Values and Subway Investment and Financing Policies. Working Paper Number 7306. Institute for the Quantitative Analysis of Social and Economic Policy. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (Mimeographed).
2. Al-Mosaind M.A., Deuker K.J., Strathman J.G. Light-rail station and property values: a Hedonic price approach. Transportation Research Record. 1400:1993;90-94.
3. Arrington Jr., G.B., 1989. Light rail and land-use: a Portland success story. Paper presented at Transportation Research Board meeting, Washington DC, January.
4. Baker, C., 1983. Tracking Washington's metro. American Demographics 5 (11), 30-35, 46.
5. Black A. Urban Mass Transportation Planning. 1995;McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. Burby R. New Communities USA. 1974;D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA.
7. Cevero, R., 1989. America's Suburban Centers: The Land-use-Transportation Link. Unwin Hyman Inc.
8. Cevero R. Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey. Transportation Research A. 30(5):1996;361-377.
9. Cevero R., Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3D's: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research D. 2(3):1997;199-219.
10. Cevero R., Landis J. Twenty years of the Bay Area rapid transit system: land-use and development impacts. Transportation Research A. 31(4):1997;309-333.
11. Cramer, J.S., 1991. The Logit Model: An Introduction for Economists. Edward Arnold.
12. Dewees, D.N., 1975. The Effect of Subway on Residential Property Values in Toronto. Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (Mimeographed).
13. De Donnea F.X. The Determinants of Transport Mode-choice in Dutch Cities. 1971;Rotterdam University Press, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
14. Dunphy R.T., Fisher K. Transportation, congestion, and density: new insights. Transportation Research Record. 1552:1996;89-96.
15. Ewing, R., 1995. Beyond density, mode-choice, and single-purpose trips. Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, January.
16. Frank L.D., Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle. Transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record. 1466:1994;44-52.
17. Friedman B., Gordon S.P., Peers J.B. The effect of neo-traditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record. 1400:1994;63-70.
18. Gentlemen, H., Mitchell, C.G.B., Walmsley, D.A., Wicks, J., 1983. The Glasgow Rail Impact Study: Summary Report. Transport and Road Research Laboratory Supplementary Report 800, Crowthorne, Berkshire.
19. Giuliano, G., 1995. Land-use impacts of transportation investments: Highway and transit. In: Hanson, S. (Ed.), The Geography of Urban Transportation, second ed., 1995, pp. 305-341.
20. Giuliano G., Small K.A. Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Studies. 30:1993;1485-1500.
21. Gonzales, L.S.Q., 1980. Short run bus transit planning: demand prediction at the route level. S.M. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
22. Green, R.D., Jones, D.M., 1993. Rail Transit Station Area Development: Small Modeling in Washington DC. Armonk, New York.
23. Handy S. Regional versus local accessibility: implications for non-work travel. Transportation Research Record. 1400:1993;58-66.
24. Handy, S., 1995. Understanding the link between urban form and travel behavior. Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of The Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 950691.
25. Handy S. Urban form and pedestrian choices: study of Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record. 1552:1996;135-144.
26. Heenan, G.W., 1966. The influence of rapid transit on real estate values in Toronto. Presented to Workshop-Conference on Transit and Development sponsored by Institute for Rapid Transit in cooperation with Boston College, 15 June, Toronto, Canada (Mimeographed).
27. Heenan, G.W., 1968. The economic effect of rapid transit on real estate development. Appraisal Journal 36 (2).
28. Heilburn J. Urban Economics and Public Policy. 1981;St. Martin Press, New York.
29. Hunt J.D., McMillan J.D.P., Abraham J.E. Stated preference investigation of influences on attractiveness of residential locations. Transportation Research Record. 1466:1994;79-87.
30. Knight, R.L., Trygg, L.L., 1977. Land-use impacts of rapid transit systems: implications of recent experience. Final Report Prepared for the US Department of Transportation.
31. Kockelman K.M. Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land-use mixing, and land-use balance: evidence from the San Francisco bay area. Transportation Research Record. 1607:1997;116-125.
32. Levinson, D.M., Kumar, A., 1993. Is residential density a transportation issue? Urban Studies (submitted).
33. Libicki, M.C., 1975. Land-use Impacts of Major Transit Improvements, Washington DC: Urban Analysis Program, Office of Transportation Planning Analysis, Assistant Secretary for Policy Plans and International Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, March.
34. Loutzenheiser, D.R. 1997. Pedestrian access to transit-A model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around BART stations. Presented at 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, January.
35. McNally M.G., Kulkarni A. Assessment of the land-use-transportation system and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record. 1607:1997;105-115.
36. Messenger T., Ewing R. Transit-oriented development in the sun belt. Transportation Research Record. 1552:1996;145-153.
37. Meyer, J.R., Gomez-Ibanez, J.A., 1981. Autos, Transit and Cities. Havard University Press.
38. Miller E.J., Ibrahim A. Urban form and vehicular travel: some empirical findings. Transportation Research Record. 1617:1998;18-27.
39. Nelson, A.C., Sanchez, T.L., 1997. The influence of MARTA on population and employment location. Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of The Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
40. Newman P.W., Kenworthy J.R. Cities and Automobile Dependence: A Sourcebook. 1989;Gower Technical, Brookfield, VT.
41. Nowlan D.M., Stewart G. Downtown population growth and commuting trips: recent experience in Toronto. Journal of the American Planning Association. 57:1991;165-182.
42. Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc., 1995. TCRP Research Results Digest: An Evaluation of the Relationships between Transit and Urban Form.
43. Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc., 1996a. Influence of land-use mix and neighborhood design on transit demand. Prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
44. Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc., 1996b. Transit and urban form. TCRP Report 16, vol. 1, prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
45. Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc., 1996c. Transit and urban form: mode of access and catchment areas of rail transit. TCRP Project H-1. Prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, March.
46. Peat Marwick & Mitchell, 1975. An Econometric Analysis of Public Transportation Planning Norms. US Department of Transportation, Washington DC.
47. Pushkarev, B., Zupan, J., 1977. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press.
48. Pushkarev, B., Zupan, J., 1980. Urban Rail in America. Indiana University Press.
49. Schimek, P., 1996a. Land-use, transit, and mode split in Boston and Toronto. Presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and Association of European Schools of Planning Joint International Congress, Toronto, Canada, July.
50. Schimek P. Household motor vehicle ownership and use: how much does residential density matter? Transportation Research Record. 1552:1996;120-125.
51. Smith W. Mass transit for high-rise, high-density living. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 110(6):1984;521-535.
52. Spengler E.H. Land Value in New York in Relation to Transit Facilities. 1930;Columbia University Press, New York.
53. Steiner R.L. Residential density and travel patterns: review of the literature. Transportation Research Record. 1466:1994;37-43.
54. Webber, M.M., 1976. The BART Experience - What Have We Learned. In: The Public Interest, pp. 79-108.
55. Workman, S.L., Brod, D., 1997. Measuring the neighborhood benefits of rail transit accessibility. Presented at 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.