How do local actions affect VMT? A critical review of the empirical evidence

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Volumn 17, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 495-508

  Salon, Deborah ^a   Boarnet, Marlon G ^b,c   Handy, Susan ^a   Spears, Steven ^b   Tal, Gil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Research design; Transit; Transport pricing; Travel and the environment; Vehicle miles traveled

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; LAND USE; TRAFFIC CONTROL; TRANSPORTATION CHARGES;

CRITICAL REVIEW; EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGNS; RESIDENTIAL DENSITY; TRANSIT; TRANSPORT POLICY; TRAVEL AND THE ENVIRONMENT; VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED;

VEHICLES;

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; PLANNING THEORY; POLICY ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; ROAD PRICING; THEORETICAL STUDY; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL TIME;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84863752829     PISSN: 13619209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Bailey, L., Mokhtarian, P.L., Little, A., 2008. The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. ICF International, Washington DC.
2. Balepur P.N., Varma K.V., Mokhtarian P.L. Transportation impacts of center-based telecommuting: interim findings from the neighborhood telecenters project. Transportation 1998, 25:287-306.
3. Bento, A.M., Cropper, M.L., Mobarak, A.M., Vinha, K., 2003. The Impact of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States, Policy Research Working Paper 3007. The World Bank Development Research Group, Infrastructure and Environment, Washington DC.
4. Bento A.M., Cropper M.L., Mobarak A.M., Vinha K. The Effects of Srban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2005, 87:466-478.
5. Boarnet, M.G., Nesamani, K.S., Smith, C.S., 2004. Comparing the influence of land use on nonwork trip generation and vehicle distance traveled: An analysis using travel diary data. 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
6. Boarnet M.G., Greenwald M., McMillan T. Walking, urban design, and health: toward a cost-benefit analysis framework. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2008, 27:341-358.
7. Boarnet M.G., Houston D., Ferguson G., Spears S. Land use and vehicle miles of travel in the climate change debate: getting smarter than your average bear. Climate Change and Land Policies 2011, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. Y.H. Hong, G. Ingram (Eds.).
8. Boarnet M.G., Joh K., Siembab W., Fulton W., Nguyen M. Retrofitting the suburbs to increase walking: evidence from a land use - travel study. Urban Studies 2011, 48:129-159.
9. Bricka S., Zmud J., Wolf J., Freedman J. Household travel surveys with GPS: an experiment. Transportation Research Record 2009, 2105:51-56.
10. Brownstone, D., 2008. Key Relationships Between the Built Environment and VMT. Paper prepared for the Transportation Research Board panel " Relationships Among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy" <> (accessed 10.07.11). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298brownstone.pdf.
11. Brownstone D., Golob T. The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Journal of Urban Economics 2009, 65:91-98.
12. Burris M.W., Cain A., Pendyla R.M. Impact of variable pricing on temporal distribution of travel demand. Transportation Research Record 2001, 1747:36-43.
13. Cao X., Mokhtarian P., Handy S.L. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews 2009, 29:359-395.
14. Cervero R., Duncan M. Which reduces vehicle travel more: jobs-housing balance or retail-housing mixing?. Journal of the American Planning Association 2006, 72:475-490.
15. Cervero R., Kockelman K.K. Travel demand and the 3 Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D 1997, 2:199-219.
16. Chapman, J., Frank, L., 2004. Integrating travel behavior and urban form data to address transportation and air quality problems in Atlanta, Georgia, Research Project No. 9819, Task Order 97-13. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
17. Chatman D.G. Deconstructing development density: quality, quantity and price effects on household non-work travel. Transportation Research Part A 2008, 42:1008-1030.
18. CTR Task Force, 2005. Report to the Washington State Legislature. <> (accessed 18.04.10). http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/172087A9-85D1-416B-86C4-33281C7BDE68/0/CTR_Report_05.pdf.
19. CURACAO, 2009. Deliverable D3: Case Study Results, Project: Coordination of Urban Road User Charging Organisational Issues Sponsored by European Commission under the FP6 Framework. <> (accessed 30.03.10). http://www.curacaoproject.eu/workfiles/files/deliverables/CURACAO%20D3%20Case%20Study%20Results%20FINAL%20v1.0.pdf.
20. Deakin, E., Harvey, G., Pozdena, R., Yarema, G., 1996. Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy and Equity Impacts. Final Report. Prepared for California Air Resources Board, Sacramento.
21. Dill J., Carr T. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: If you build them, commuters will use them. Transportation Research Record 2003, 1828:116-123.
22. Dueker K.J., Strathman J.G., Bianco M.J. Strategies to Attract Auto Users to Public Transportation, TCRP Report 40 1998, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
23. Duranton G., Turner M. The fundamental law of road congestion: evidence from US cities. American Economic Review 2011, 101:2616-2652.
24. Eliasson J., Hultkrantz L., Nerhagen L., Rosqvist L.S. The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: overview of effects. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:240-250.
25. Ewing E., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. Journal of American Planning Association 2010, 76:265-294.
26. Ewing R., Greenwald M.J., Zhang M., Walters J., Feldman M., Cervero R., Thomas J. Measuring the Impact of Urban Form and Transit Access on Mixed Use Site Trip Generation Rates - Portland Pilot Study 2009, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
27. Fan, Y., 2007. The Built Environment, Activity Space, and Time Allocation: An Activity-based Framework for Modeling the Land Use and Travel Connection. Ph.D. University of North Carolina.
28. Fan Y., Khattak A.J. Urban form, individual spatial footprints, and travel: examination of space-use behavior. Transportation Research Record 2008, 2082:98-106.
29. Fang H.A. A discrete-continuous model of households' vehicle choice and usage, with an application to the effects of residential density. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 42:736-758.
30. Frank L.D., Engelke P. Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. International Regional Science Review 2005, 28:193-216.
31. Frank L.D., Saelens B.E., Powell K.E., Chapman J.E. Stepping towards causation: do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?. Social Science & Medicine 2007, 65:1898-1914.
32. Fujii S., Taniguchi A. Determinants of the effectiveness of travel feedback programs-a review of communicative mobility management measures for changing travel behaviour in Japan. Transport Policy 2006, 13:339-348.
33. Funderburg R., Nixon H., Boarnet M.G., Ferguson G. New highways and land use change: results from a quasi-experimental research design. Transportation Research Part A 2010, 44:76-98.
34. Goodwin, P.B., 1989. Evidence on car and public transport demand elasticities, 1980-1988. Second Draft, TSU Ref.:427. Oxford Transport Studies Unit, Oxford.
35. Graham-Rowe E., Skippon S., Gardner B., Abraham C. Can we reduce car use and if so, how? A review of the available evidence. Transportation Research Part A 2011, 45:401-418.
36. Guo J.Y., Gandavarapu S. An economic evaluation of health-promotive built environment changes. Preventive Medicine 2010, 50:S44-S49.
37. Handy S. Longer view: the road less driven. Journal of the American Planning Association 2006, 72:274-278.
38. Handy S., Xing Y. Factors correlated with bicycle commuting: a study in six small US cities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2011, 5:91-110.
39. Handy S., Xing Y., Buehler T. Factors associated with bicycle ownership and use: a study of six small US cities. Transportation 2010, 37:967-985.
40. Handy S., Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L. Does self-selection explain the relationship between built environment and walking behavior? Empirical evidence from Northern california. Journal of the American Planning Association 2006, 72:55-74.
41. Harvey, G., 1994. Transportation pricing behaviour. In: Special Report 242 - Curbing Gridlock: Peak Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, vol. 2. Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
42. Henderson D.K., Mokhtarian P.L. Impacts of center-based telecommuting on travel and emissions: analysis of the Puget Sound demonstration project. Transportation Research, Part D 1996, 1:29-45.
43. 2 emissions: are land-use changes enough for California to reduce VMT? Specification of a two-part model with instrumental variables. Transportation Research Part B 2011, 45:150-161.
44. Herzog E., Bricka S., Audette L., Rockwell J. Do employee commuter benefits reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption? Results of fall 2004 survey of best workplaces for commuters. Transportation Research Record 2006, 1956:34-41.
45. Hillsman E.L., Reeves P., Blain L. Estimation of effects of Washington State's trip-reduction program on traffic volumes and delays: central Puget sound region. Transportation Research Record 2001, 1765:16-19.
46. Krizek K.J., Johnson P.J. Proximity to trails and retail: effects on urban cycling and walking. Journal of the American Planning Association 2006, 72:33-42.
47. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P., Pendyala, R., Goulias, K., 1991. An Evaluation of Telecommuting as a Trip Reduction Measure. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Planning and Transport Research and Computation. Education and Research Services Limited, University of Sussex, Brighton.
48. Kitamura R., Laidet L., Mokhtarian P. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 1997, 24:125-158.
49. 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 1997, 1607:116-125.
50. Kuzmyak R., Baber C., Savory D. Use of a walk opportunities index to quantify local accessibility. Transportation Research Record 2006, 1977:145-153.
51. Lagerberg B. Washington state's commute trip reduction program: Phase 1: assessment and implications for program design. Transportation Research Record 1997, 1598:36-42.
52. Lautso, K., Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M., Sheppard, I., Steadman, P., Marino, A., Domingo, R., Gayda S., 2004. PROPOLIS: Planning and Research of Policies for Land Use and Transport for Increasing Urban Sustainability: Final Report, European Commission, Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development Thematic Programme, Brussels.
53. Leape J. The London congestion charge. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2006, 20:157-176.
54. Litman, T., Steele, R., 2011. Land use impacts on transport: how land use factors affect travel behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. <>. http://www.vtpi.org.
55. Noland R., Kunreuther H. Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips. Transportation Policy 1995, 2:67-79.
56. Olszewski P. Singapore motorisation restraint and its implications on travel behaviour and urban sustainability. Transportation 2007, 34:319-335.
57. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, 1993. The Pedestrian Environment, Report prepared for the 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland.
58. Paulley N., Balcombe R., Mackett R., Titheridge H., Preston J., Wardman M., Shires J., White P. The demand for public transport: the effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transport Policy 2006, 12:295-306.
59. Pushkar, A.O., Hollingworth, B.J., Miller, E.J., 2000. A multivariate regression model for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from alternative neighborhood designs. In: 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC.
60. Rodier C.J. Air Emissions Impacts of Regional Transportation and Land Development Policies 2002, A Report for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
61. Rodríguez D.A., Brown A.L., Troped P.J. Portable global positioning units to complement accelerometry-based physical activity monitors. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise 2005, 37:S572-S581.
62. Rufolo A.M., Kimpel T.J. Responses to Oregon's experiment in road pricing. Transportation Research Record 2008, 2079:1-7.
63. Safirova E., Houde S., Harrington W. Spatial Development and Energy Consumption 2007, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
64. Salon D. Neighborhoods, cars, and commuting in New York City: a discrete choice approach. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:180-196.
65. Shoup D. Evaluating the effects of cashing out employer-paid parking: eight case studies. Transport Policy 1997, 4:201-216.
66. Sloman L., Cairns S., Newson C., Anable J., Pridmore A., Goodwin P. The Effects of Smarter Choice Programmes in the Sustainable Travel Towns: Summary Report 2010, Report to the Department for Transport, London.
67. Socialdata America, 2007. Individual Transportation Options Pilot Project. <> (accessed 14.07.10). http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/PT/PROGRAMS/TRANS_OPTIONS/TRAVEL_SMART/TravelSmartMar07Rpt.pdf.
68. Zegras C. The built environment and motor vehicle ownership and use: evidence from santiago de chile. Urban Studies 2010, 47:1793-1817.