Dimensions of urban mobility cultures - a comparison of German cities

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 31, Issue , 2013, Pages 18-29

  Klinger, Thomas ^a   Kenworthy, Jeffrey R ^a,b   Lanzendorf, Martin ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cluster analysis; Germany; Mobility culture; Mode choice; Perception; Travel behaviour

Indexed keywords

MOBILITY; PERCEPTION; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; URBAN TRANSPORT;

GERMANY;

EID: 84878786673     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. ADFC, 2003. Ergebnisse ADFC-Fahrradklimatest 2003. Presentation on March, 12, 2004, presented in Potsdam.
2. ADFC Gesamtübersicht Fahrradklimatest 2005 2005, ADFC, Bremen.
3. ADFC, 2012. ADFC-Fahrradklima-Test 2012 - Ergebnistabelle Städte Ausführlich. (accessed 26.04.13). http://www.adfc.de/fahrradklima-test/ergebnisse/adfc-fahrradklimatest-2012---die-ergebnisse.
4. Anable J. Picnics, pets, and pleasant places: the distinguishing characteristics of leisure travel demand. Social Change and Sustainable Transport 2002, 181-190. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. W.R. Black, P. Nijkamp (Eds.).
5. Apel D., Lehmbrock M., Pharoah T., Thiemann-Linden J. Kompakt, mobil, urban: Stadtentwicklungskonzepte zur Verkehrsvermeidung im internationalen Vergleich 1997, difu, Berlin.
6. Bacher J., Pöge A., Wenzig K. Clusteranalyse - Anwendungsorientierte Einführung in Klassifikationsverfahren 2010, Oldenbourg, Munich. 3rd ed.
7. Backhaus K., Erichson B., Plinke W., Weiber R. Multivariate Analysemethoden - Eine Anwendungsorientierte Einführung 2011, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 13th ed.
8. Bagley M., Mokhtarian P. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior. A structural equations modeling approach. Annals of Regional Science 2002, 36(2):279-297.
9. Banister D. Energy, quality of life and the environment: the role of transport. Transport Reviews 1996, 16(1):23-35.
10. Banister, D., 1997. The theory behind the integration of land use and transport planning. In: Proceedings, Waterfront Conference, April, 5-9 1997, London.
11. Barrett G. The transport dimension. The Compact City. A Sustainable Urban Form? 2000, 171-180. E&FN Spon, London. M. Jenks, E. Burton, K. Williams (Eds.).
12. Beck U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity 1992, Sage, London.
13. Boarnet M., Crane R. The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research Part A 2001, 35(9):823-845.
14. Bratzel S. Conditions of success in sustainable urban transport policy - policy change in 'relatively successful' European cities. Transport Reviews 1999, 19(2):177-190.
15. Breheny M.J. Sustainable Development and Urban Form 1992, Pion, London.
16. Cervero R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry 1998, Island Press, Washington, DC.
17. Cervero R., Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design. Transportation Research Part D 1997, 2(3):199-219.
18. Chapin F.S. Human Activity Patterns in the City: Things People do in Time and in Space 1974, Wiley, New York.
19. Chatterjee K., Sherwin H., Jain J. Triggers for changes in cycling: the role of life events and modifications to the external environment. Journal of Transport Geography 2013, in press.
20. Collantes G., Mokhtarian P. Subjective assessments of personal mobility: what makes the difference between a little and a lot?. Transport Policy 2007, 14(3):181-192.
21. Collen H., Hoekstra J. Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 2001, 16(3-4):285-306.
22. Cresswell T. Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D 2010, 28(1):17-31.
23. Curry G., Loader C. Bus network planning for transfers and the network effect in Melbourne, Australia. Transportation Research Record 2010, 2145:181-192.
24. Deffner, J., Götz, K., Schubert, S., Potting, C., Stete, G., Tschann, A., Loose, W., 2006. Schlussbericht zu dem Projekt "Nachhaltige Mobilitätskultur". Entwicklung eines integrierten Konzepts der Planung, Kommunikation und Implementierung einer nachhaltigen, multioptionalen Mobilitätskultur. Projekt 70.0749/04(FOPS) BMVBS Referat A 32. ISOE: Frankfurt am Main.
25. Der Spiegel, Der Straßenkampf Rüpel-Republik Deutschland. Spiegel 2011, 37:66-75.
26. Florida R. The Rise of the Creative Class - And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life 2004, Basic Books, New York.
27. Fouchier, V., 1998. Urban Density and Mobility in Ile-de-France Region. Paper Presented at The UN-ECE 8th Conference on Urban and Regional Research June, 8-11 1998. UN, Conference on Urban and Regional Research, Madrid.
28. Frank L.D., Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single occupant vehicles, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record 1994, 1466:44-52.
29. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity 1990, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
30. Giuliano G., Dargay J. Car ownership, travel and land use: a comparison of the US and Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A 2006, 40(2):106-124.
31. Goetzke F. Effects in public transit use: evidence from a spatially autoregressive mode choice model for New York. Urban Studies 2008, 45(2):407-417.
32. Goetzke F., Rave T. Bicycle use in Germany: explaining differences between municipalities with social network effects. Urban Studies 2011, 48(2):427-437.
33. Gordon P. Densities, urban form and travel behavior. Town and Country Planning 1997, 66(9):239-241.
34. Gordon P., Richardson H.W. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?. Journal of the American Planning Association 1997, 63(1):95-106.
35. Götz, K., Deffner, J., 2009. Eine neue Mobilitätskultur in der Stadt - praktische Schritte zur Veränderung. In: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau u. Stadtentwicklung (Eds.), Urbane Mobilität. Verkehrsforschung des Bundes für die kommunale Praxis. NW-Verlag, Bremerhaven, pp. 39-52.
36. Groneck C. Neue Straßenbahnen in Frankreich. Die Wiederkehr eines urbanen Verkehrsmittels 2003, EK-Verlag, Freiburg.
37. Groneck C. Erfolgsrezepte von Frankreichs neuen Straßenbahnsystemen: Warum die Tram-Renaissance westlich des Rheins so überzeugend ist. Der Nahverkehr 2009, 26(5):34-37.
38. Haefeli, U., 2008. Verkehrspolitik und urbane Mobilität - Deutsche und Schweizer Städte im Vergleich 1950-1990. Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte und Urbanisierungsforschung, 8. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart.
39. Hägerstrand T. What about people in regional science?. papers of the Regional Science Association 1970, 24:7-21.
40. Handy S.L. Regional versus local accessibility: neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel. Built Environment 1992, 18(4):253-267.
41. Handy S.L., Cao X., Mokhtarian P. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D 2005, 10:427-444.
42. Hass-Klau C., Crampton G., Biereth C., Deutsch V. Bus or Light Rail: Making The Right Choice; A Financial, Operational and Demand Comparison of Light Rail, Guided Buses, Busways and Bus Lanes 2003, Environmental & Transport Planning, Brighton. second ed.
43. Heinen E., Van Wee B., Maat K. Bicycle use for commuting: a literature review. Transport Reviews 2010, 30(1):105-132.
44. Hesse M., Nuhn H. Verkehrsgeographie 2006, Schöningh, Paderborn.
45. Hickman R., Banister D. Reducing travel by design: what about change over time?. Spatial Planning, Urban Form, and Sustainable Transport 2005, 102-119. Ashgate, Aldershot. K. Williams (Ed.).
46. Hörning, K., 1999. Kulturelle Kollisionen. Die Soziologie vor neuen Herausforderungen. In: Hörning, K., Winter R. (Eds.), Widerspenstige Kulturen. Cultural Studies als Herausforderung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am, Main, pp. 84-115.
47. infas, DIW, 2004. Mobilität in Deutschland 2002: Ergebnisbericht. infas; DIW, Bonn, Berlin. (accessed 26.04.13). http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/03_kontiv2002/publikationen.htm.
48. infas, DLR, 2010. Mobilität in Deutschland 2008: Ergebnisbericht, Struktur - Aufkommen - Emissionen - Trends. infas, DLR, Bonn, Berlin.(accessed 26.04.13). http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/MiD2008_Abschlussbericht_I.pdf.
49. IW Consult, 2008. Fahrkosten-Ranking 2008: Vergleich der 100 größten deutschen Städte: Köln.(accessed 02.12.12). http://www.insm-fahrtkostenranking.de/files/Endbericht-2008-02-06.pdf.
50. Janowicz, C., 2006. Vom ,Kitt' der Gesellschaft zum ,doing culture': Eine kleine Typologie der Kulturbegriffe. In: ISOE (Ed.), Schlussbericht zu dem Projekt "Nachhaltige Mobilitätskultur". Entwicklung eines integrierten Konzepts der Planung, Kommunikation und Implementierung einer nachhaltigen, multioptionalen Mobilitätskultur. Projekt 70.0749/04(FOPS) BMVBS Referat A 32, Anhang 1c, Frankfurt am, Main, pp. 1-8.
51. The Compact City: A Sustainable urban Form? 2000, E&FN Spon, London. M. Jenks, E. Burton, K. Williams (Eds.).
52. Jensen O.B. Flows of meaning, cultures of movements - urban mobility as meaningful everyday life practice. Mobilities 2009, 4(1):139-158.
53. Kenworthy J.R. An international review of the significance of rail in developing more sustainable urban transport systems in higher income cities. World Transport Policy and Practice 2008, 14(2):21-37.
54. Khattak A.J., Rodriguez D. Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: a case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A 2005, 39(6):481-500.
55. Krizek K.J. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter?. Journal of the American Planning Association 2003, 69(3):265-281.
56. Kulash W., Anglin J., Marks D. Traditional neighborhood development: will the traffic work?. Development 1990, 21(July/August):21-24.
57. Lanzendorf M. Mobility styles and travel behavior: application of a lifestyle approach to leisure travel. Transportation Research Record 2002, 1807:163-173.
58. Lanzendorf, M., Busch-Geertsema, A., 2012. The Cycling Boom in Some German Cities - Understanding and Explaining Behavioral Change. Paper Presented at the 13th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research (IATBR), Toronto, 15-20 July 2012.
59. Lötscher, L., Mayer, O., Monheim, R., 2001. Mobilität und Verkehrsmittelwahl. In: Deiters, J., Gräf, P., Löffler, G. (Eds.), Nationalatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bd. 9: Verkehr und Kommunikation, pp. 58-61.
60. Löw, M., 2008. A city's own logic: the perspective of spatial sociology on urban theory. In: Bielańska, J., Birne, T. (Eds.), (Urban Potentials). Konzepte und Handlungen = ideas and practice. Jovis, Berlin.
61. McKinsey, Stern, ZDF, Web.de, 2006. Perspektive Deutschland. (accessed 30.06.10). http://www.perspektive-deutschland.de.
62. McNally M.G., Ryan S. A comparative assessment of travel characteristics for neo-traditional developments. Transportation Research Record 1993, 1400:67-77.
63. Mokhtarian P.L., Cao X. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B - Methodological 2008, 42(3):204-228.
64. Næss P. Energy Use for Transport in 22 Nordic Towns: NIBR Report 1993, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo.
65. Næss P. Urban Form and Energy Use for Transport: A Nordic Experience 1995, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim.
66. Næss P., Jensen O. Urban structure matters, even in a small town. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2004, 47(1):35-57.
67. Newman P., Kenworthy J. Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of U.S. cities with a global survey. Journal of the American Planning Association 1989, 55(1):24-37.
68. Newman P., Kenworthy J. Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook 1989, Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
69. Newman P., Kenworthy J. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence 1999, Island Press, Washington, DC.
70. Newman P., Kenworthy J. Urban design to reduce automobile dependence. Opolis 2006, 2(1):35-52.
71. Pucher J., Buehler R. Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transport Policy 2006, 13(3):265-279.
72. Pucher J., Lefèvre C. The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North America 1996, Macmillan, London.
73. Pucher J., Buehler R., Seinen M. Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transportation Research Part A 2011, 45:451-475.
74. Ryley T. Use of non-motorised modes and life stage in Edinburgh. Journal of Transport Geography 2006, 14(5):367-375.
75. Schafer A., Victor D.G. The future mobility of the world population. Transportation Research Part A 2000, 34:171-205.
76. Scheiner J. Auswirkungen der Stadt- und Umlandwanderung auf Motorisierung und Verkehrsmittelnutzung: ein dynamisches Modell des Verkehrsverhaltens. Verkehrsforschung Online 2005, 1(1):1-17.
77. Scheiner J. Is travel mode choice driven by subjective or objective factors?. Subject-Oriented Approaches to Transport 2009, 53-69. Institut für Raumplanung (IRPUD), Dortmund. C. Holz-Rau, J. Scheiner (Eds.).
78. Scheiner J. Sozialer Wandel, Raum und Mobilität: Empirische Untersuchungen zur Subjektivierung der Verkehrsnachfrage 2009, VS, Wiesbaden.
79. Scheiner J., Holz-Rau C. Travel mode choice: affected by objective or subjective determinants?. Transportation 2007, 34(4):487-511.
80. Schiefelbusch M. Miteinander reisen: Vom Transport zum Reiseerlebnis - Reiseerleben und Reisekultur im Nahverkehr. Der Nahverkehr 2009, 26(5):29-33.
81. Schipper, L., Deakin, E., Sperling, D., 2010 [1994]. Sustainable Transportation. The Future of the Automobile in an Environmentally Constrained World. UCTC 697. Berkeley.
82. Schuitema G., Anable J., Skippon S., Kinnear N. The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part A 2013, 48:39-49.
83. Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P. What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13(1):83-99.
84. Schwanen T., Dieleman F.M., Dijst M. Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and polycentric urban systems. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9(3):173-186.
85. Sheller M., Urry J. The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A 2006, 38(2):207-226.
86. Sherwin, H., Chatterjee, K., Jain, J., 2012. An exploration of the importance of social influence in the decision to start bicycling in England. In: 13th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, July 15-20, 2012, Toronto.
87. Siedentop S., Lanzendorf M., Kausch S. Siedlungsstruktur- und Mobilitätsprofile suburbaner Gemeindetypen. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 2006, 80(4):415-431.
88. Simma A., Axhausen K.W. Structures of commitment in mode use: a comparison of Switzerland, Germany and Great Britain. Transport Policy 2001, 8(4):279-288.
89. Snellen D. Urban Form and Activity-Travel Patterns: An Activity-Based Approach to Travel in a Spatial Context 2001, Techn. Univ. Fac. Bouwkunde, Eindhoven, Eindhoven.
90. Stead D. Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B 2001, 28(4):499-529.
91. Stone J. Contrasts in reform: how the Cain and Burke years shaped public transport in Melbourne and Perth. Urban Policy Research 2009, 27(4):419-434.
92. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics 2009, Pearson, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Mass. fifth ed.
93. Thomson J.M. Great Cities and Their Traffic 1977, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
94. Van Acker V., Van Wee B., Witlox F. When transport geography meets social psychology: toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews 2010, 30(2):219-240.
95. Van Wee B. Land use and transport: research and policy challenges. Journal of Transport Geography 2002, 10(4):259-271.
96. Vannini P. The Cultures of Alternative Mobilities: Routes Less Travelled 2009, Ashgate, Farnham.
97. Vigar G. The Politics of Mobility. Transport, the Environment and Public Policy 2002, Spon Press, London.
98. Waddell P., Bhat C.R., Outwater M.L. Land Use and Travel Demand Forecasting Models: Review of the Literature and Operational Models: Final Report 2001, The Council, Seattle.
99. Spatial Planning, Urban Form, and Sustainable Transport 2005, Ashgate, Aldershot. K. Williams (Ed.).