Built environment and mode choice relationship for commute travel in the city of Rajkot, India

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Volumn 44, Issue , 2016, Pages 239-253

  Munshi, Talat ^a  

^a Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology   (India)

Author keywords

Built environment; Mode choice; Transport; Urban planning

Indexed keywords

ENERGY UTILIZATION; LAND USE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TRANSPORTATION; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN TRANSPORTATION;

BUILT ENVIRONMENT; METROPOLITAN AREA; MODE CHOICE; PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES; PUBLIC TRANSPORT TRAVELS; RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS; SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES; TRANSPORT;

NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION;

METROPOLITAN AREA; SUSTAINABILITY; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN TRANSPORT;

GUJARAT; INDIA; RAJKOT;

EID: 84961351906     PISSN: 13619209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adhvaryu B. The Ahmedabad urban development plan-making process: a critical review. Plann. Pract. Res. 2011, 26(2):229-250.
2. Badoe D.A., Miller E.J. Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2000, 5(4):235-263.
3. Banister D. Planning more to travel less: land use and transport. Town Plann. Rev. 1999, 70(3):313.
4. Ben-Akiva M.E., Lerman S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand 1985, MIT Press.
5. 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.
6. Bhat C.R., Eluru N. A copula-based approach to accommodate residential self-selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transport. Res. Part B: Methodol. 2009, 43(7):749-765.
7. Bhat C.R., Sen S., Eluru N. The impact of demographics, built environment attributes, vehicle characteristics, and gasoline prices on household vehicle holdings and use. Transport. Res. Part B: Methodol. 2009, 43(1):1-18.
8. Bhatia, R., 2004. Land use: a key to livable transportation. In: 40th International Making Cities Livable Conference.
9. Boarnet M.G., Greenwald M., McMillan T.E. Walking, urban design, and health: toward a cost-benefit analysis framework. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 2008, 27(3):341-358.
10. 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.
11. Boarnet M.G., Sarmiento S. Can land use policy really affect travel behavior?. Urban Stud. 1998, 35(7):10-15.
12. Brueckner J.K., Sridhar K.S. In defence of relaxed FSI limits. Econ. Polit. Weekly 2013, 47(7):82.
13. Cao X.Y., Mokhtarian P.L., Handy S.L. The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: a case study of Northern California. Transport. Res. Part A - Policy Pract. 2009, 43(5):548-559.
14. Cervero R. Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey. Transp. Res. Part A 1996, (5):361-377.
15. Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2002, 7(4):265-284.
16. Cervero R. Linking urban transport and land use in developing countries. J. Transp. Land Use 2013, 6(1):7-24.
17. Cervero R., Duncan M. Which reduces vehicle travel more: jobs-housing balance of retail-housing mixing?. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2006, 72(4):475-490.
18. Cervero R., Kockelman K.M. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 1997, 2(3):199-219.
19. 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).
20. Chatman D.G. Deconstructing development density: quality, quantity and price effects on household non-work travel. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2008, 42(7):1008-1030.
21. Chatman D.G. Residential choice, the built environment, and non-work travel: Evidence using new data and methods. Environ. Plann. A 2009, 41(5):1072-1089.
22. Crane R., Crepeau R. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 1998, 3(4):225-238.
23. Datey, A., Darji, V., Patel, T., Mahadevia, D., 2012. Walking and Cycling in Indian Cities: A Struggle for Reclaiming Road Edges. CUE Working Paper Series.
24. Dijst M.J., Vidakovic V. Travel time ratio: the key factor of spatial reach. Transportation 2000, 27(2):179-199.
25. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transport. Res. Rec. 2001, (1780):87-113.
26. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2010, 76(3):265-294.
27. Ewing R., DeAnna M., Li S.C. Land use impacts on trip generation rates. Transport. Res. Rec. 1996, (1518):1-6.
28. Ewing, R., Greenwald, M.J., Zhang, M., Walters, J., Feldman, M., Cervero, R., Thomas, J., 2009. Measuring the Impact of Urban Form and Transit Access on Mixed use Site Trip Generation Rates - Portland Pilot Study.
29. Frank L., Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit and walking. Transp. Res. Rec. 1994, 1466:44-52.
30. Frank L.D., Engelke P. Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2005, 28(2):193-216.
31. Frank, L.D., Kavage, S., Greenwald, M., Chapman, J., Bradley, M., 2009. I-PLACE3S Health & Climate Enhancements and their Application in King County.
32. Geurs, K.T., Eck, J.R.Rv., 2001. Accessibility measures: review and applications, Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transport scenarios and related social and economic impacts, Urban Research Centre, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
33. Gim T.H.T. A meta-analysis of the relationship between density and travel behavior. Transportation 2012, 39(3):491-519.
34. Greenwald M.J. SACSIM Modeling-Elasticity Results: Draft 2009, Fehr & Peers Associates, Walnut Creek, CA, (Unpublished manuscript).
35. Holtzclaw J., Clear R., Dittmar H., Goldstein D., Haas P. Location efficiency: neighborhood and socio-economic characteristics determine auto ownership and use - studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Transport. Plann. Technol. 2002, 25(1):1-27.
36. Khattak A.J., Rodriguez D. Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: a case study in USA. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2005, 39(6):481-500.
37. Kitamura R., Fujii S., Pas E. Time-use data, analysis and modeling: toward the next generation of transportation planning methodologies. Transp. Policy 1997, 4(4):225-235.
38. Kockelman K.M. Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transport. Res. Rec. 1997, (1607):116-125.
39. Kuzmyak, J.R., 2009. Estimating the travel benefits of blueprint land use concepts, Unpublished Manuscript. Los Angeles, CA, Southern California Association of Governments.
40. Kuzmyak J.R., Baber C., Savory D. Use of walk opportunities index to quantify local accessibility. Transport. Res. Rec. 2006, (1977):145-153.
41. Milakis D., Barbopoulos N. Relationships between urban form and travel behaviour in Athens, Greece. A comparison with Western European and North American results. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2008, (8):3.
42. MOUD, 2006. National Urban Transport Policy. Government of India, India.
43. MRSI, 2011. Socio-Economic Classification - 2011. The New SEC System, The Market Research Society of India, India.
44. Munshi, T., 2013. Built Form, Travel Behaviour and Low Carbon Development in Ahmedabad, India. Ph.D., University of Twente.
45. Munshi T., Belal W., Dijst M. Public transport provision in Ahmedabad, India: accessibility to work place. Urban Transport X: Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century 2004, vol. 16:343-353. Wit Press, Southampton.
46. Munshi, T., Brussel, M., Zuidgeest, M., 2008. Developing a Geo-Spatial Urban Form - Travel Behaviour Model for the City of Ahmedabad, India, CODATU XIII. Hô Chi Minh City, p. 11.
47. Munshi T., Zuidgeest M., Brussel M., van Maarseveen M. Logistic regression and cellular automata-based modelling of retail, commercial and residential development in the city of Ahmedabad, India. Cities 2014, 39:68-86.
48. Newling B.E. The spatial variation of urban population densities. Geogr. Rev. 1969, 242-252.
49. Pucher J., Korattyswaropam N., Mittal N., Ittyerah N. Urban transport crisis in India. Transp. Policy 2005, 12(3):185-198.
50. Pushkar, A.O., Hollingworth, B.J., Miller, E.J., 2000. A multivariate regression model for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from alternative neighborhood designs. 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
51. Reilly, M., Landis, J., 2002. Influence of urban form and land use on mode choice. evidence from the 1996 bay area travel survey. Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
52. Schawanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences towards neighbourhood. J. Transp. Geogr. 2005, 13:83-99.
53. Schimek P. Household motor vehicle ownership and use: how much does residential density matter?. Transport. Res. Rec. 1996, (1552):120-125.
54. Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?. J. Transp. Geogr. 2005, 13(1):83-99. (special issue).
55. Shay E., Khattak A.J. Automobile ownership and use in neotraditional and conventional neighborhoods. Transport. Res. Rec. 2005, (1902):18-25.
56. Shen Q. Spatial and social dimensions of commuting. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2000, 66(1):68-82.
57. Stead D. Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 2001, 28(4):499-528.
58. Stead D., Marshall S. The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2001, 1(2):113-141.
59. Tiwari G., Jain H. Bicycles in urban India. Urban Transp. J. 2008, 7(2):59-68.
60. Tracy A.J., Su P., Sadek A.W., Wang Q. Assessing the impact of the built environment on travel behavior: a case study of Buffalo, New York. Transportation 2011, 38(4):663-678.
61. Vance C., Hedel R. The impact of urban form on automobile travel: disentangling causation from correlation. Transportation 2007, 34(5):575-588.
62. Zegras, P.C., 2007. The built environment and motor vehicle ownership and use: evidence from Santiago de Chile. 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.