The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home-work location, and demographics on commuting distances

Transportation

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 627-646

  Manaugh, Kevin ^a   Miranda Moreno, Luis F ^a   El Geneidy, Ahmed M ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accessibility measures; Commuting distance; Home work location; Modelling; Neighbourhood typology; Travel behaviour

Indexed keywords

DATA SOURCE; FACTOR AND CLUSTER ANALYSIS; GRID PATTERN; HOME-WORK LOCATION; LOCATION CHOICE; MARGINAL EFFECTS; NEIGHBOURHOOD; ORIGIN DESTINATION; POLICY INITIATIVES; RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTOR; SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS; SUB-REGIONS; SUBURBAN AREAS; TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR; TRAVEL DISTANCE; TRIP DISTANCES; UNOBSERVED HETEROGENEITY; URBAN FORM;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; JOB ANALYSIS; LAND USE; LOCATION;

TRANSPORTATION;

ACCESSIBILITY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMMUTING; MODELING; NEIGHBORHOOD; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT; SUBURBAN AREA; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

CANADA; MONTREAL; QUEBEC [CANADA];

EID: 77953020128     PISSN: 00494488     EISSN: 15729435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-010-9275-z     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. AMT.: Fichier de déplacements des personnes dans la région de Montréal Enquête Origine-Destination 2003, version 03. b période automne (2003).
2. Badoe, D. A., Miller, E. J.: Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transp. Res. D 5, 235-263 (2000).
3. Barbonne, R.: Gentrification, nouvel urbannisme et évolution de la mobilité quotidienne: vers un développement plus durable? le cas du Plateau Mont-Royal (1998-2003). Rech. Sociograph. 49(3), 423-445 (2008).
4. Boarnet, M., Crane, R.: The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transp. Res. A 35, 823-845 (2001).
5. Buliung, R. N., Kanaroglou, P. S.: Urban form and household activity-travel behavior. Growth Change 37(2), 172-199 (2006).
6. Cameron, I., Kenworthy, J. R., et al.: Understanding and predicting private motorised urban mobility. Transp. Res. D 8, 267-283 (2003).
7. Cervero, R.: Built environment and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transp. Res. D 7, 265-284 (2002).
8. Cervero, R., Kockelman, K.: Travel demand and the 3D's: density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. D 2(3), 199-219 (1997).
9. Coffey, W. J., Shearmur, R. G.: The identification of employment centres in Canadian areas: the example of Montreal, 1996. Can. Geogr. 45(3), 371-386 (2001).
10. Collin, J.-P., Dagenais, M., et al.: From city to city-region: historical perspective on the contentious definition of the Montréal Metropolitan area. Can. J. Urban Res. 12(1), 16-34 (2003).
11. Communauté Metropolitan de Montréal. Statistics. http://www.cmm.qc.ca/index.php?id=334 (2009). Retrieved 24 February 2009.
12. Crane, R.: On form versus function: will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 15, 117-126 (1996).
13. Crane, R.: The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review. J. Plan. Lit. 15(3), 3-23 (2000).
14. Crane, R., Schweitzer, L.: Transport and sustainability: the role of the built environment. Built Environ. 29(3), 238-252 (2001).
15. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment. Transp. Res. Rec. 1780, 87-113 (2001).
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. Transp. Res. Rec. 1466, 44-52 (1994).
17. Fujii, S., Taniguchi, A.: Reducing family car use by providing travel advice or requesting behavioural plans: an experimental analysis of travel feedback programs. Transp. Res. D 10, 385-393 (2005).
18. Giuliano, G., Small, K.: Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Stud. 30, 1485-1500 (1993).
19. Handy, S., Clifton, K. J.: Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 28, 317-346 (2001).
20. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L.: Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. D 10, 427-444 (2005).
21. Hecht, A.: The journey-to-work distance in relation to the socio-economic characteristics of workers. Can. Geogr. XVIII(4), 367-378 (1974).
22. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P., et al.: A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation 24, 125-158 (1997).
23. Krizek, K. J.: Residential relocation and changes in urban travel. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69(3), 265-281 (2003).
24. Limtanakool, N., Dijst, M., et al.: The influence of socioeconomic characteristics, land use and travel time in consideration on mod choice for medium- and longer-distance trips. J. Transp. Geogr. 14, 327-341 (2006).
25. Mauch, M., Taylor, B. D.: Gender, race, and travel behavior: analysis of household-serving travel and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transp. Res. Rec. 1607, 147-153 (1997).
26. McLafferty, S., Preston, V.: Gender, race, and commuting among service sector workers. Prof. Geogr. 43(1), 1-15 (1991).
27. Miller, E., Ibrahim, A.: Urban form and vehicular travel: some empirical findings. Transp. Res. Rec. 1617, 18-27 (1998).
28. Montreal, V. d.: Une vie proche de tout. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=4977,43881558&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL (2009).
29. Prevedouros, P. D.: Associations of personality characteristics with transport and residence location decisions. Transp. Res. 26A(5), 381-391 (1992).
30. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F. M., et al.: Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and policentric urban systems. J. Transp. Geogr. 9, 173-186 (2001).
31. Sermons, M. W., Koppelman, F. S.: Representing the differences between female and male commute behavior in residential location choice models. J. Transp. Geogr. 9, 101-110 (2001).
32. Shearmur, R. G.: Travel from home: an economic geography of commuting distances in Montréal. Urban Geogr. 27(4), 330-359 (2006).
33. Song, Y., Knaap, G.: Internally connected, no commercial, with a touch of open space: the neighborhoods of new homes in the Portland Metropolitan Area. National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/SongKnaap_NewPortlandNeighborhoods_DateNA.pdf (2004). Retrieved 23 Apr 2010.
34. Talen, E.: Measurement issues in smart growth research. In: Smart Growth and New Urbanism Conference, University of Maryland (2002).
35. van de Coevering, P., Schwanen, T.: Re-evaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North America. Transp. Policy 13, 229-239 (2006).
36. Vandersmissen, M.-H., Villeneuve, P., et al.: Analyzing changes in urban form and commuting time. Prof. Geogr. 55(4), 446-463 (2003).
37. Waddell, P.: UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 68, 297-314 (2004).
38. White, M. J.: Sex differences in urban commuting patterns. Am. Econ. Rev. 76(2), 368-372 (1986).
39. Wilson, R., K. J. Krizek, et al.: Examining the consistency of preferences about travel and neighbourhood characteristics in residential location decisions. In: 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (2007).