Understanding How Individuals Make Travel and Location Decisions: Implications for Public Transportation (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 67-81
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 67... ...
67 Introduction and Structure of the Chapter This chapter continues the exploration of market sectors that are more likely to be favorable to an urban residential environment, particularly a CN. It also explores the propensity for transit use and walking to increase with a change in neighborhood type.
|
From page 68... ...
Technical Explanation of the Approach A set of rating statements created for application of the TPB were examined for their role in the creation of a "personal values" factor. Two statements were examined first: "For me to live within walking distance to stores, restaurants, a public library, and a school would be (desirable/undesirable)
|
From page 69... ...
Table 8-2 shows that while 15% of the trips by all purposes for the low urban/environmental values group were taken by green modes, some 33% of trips of those in the high urban/ environmental values group were taken by green modes. Thus, green mode trip making was over twice as prevalent for the high urban/environmental values group as for those in the low urban/environmental values group.
|
From page 70... ...
from the built environment, in relation to the propensity to walk and take transit. The Phase I survey offers a wide variety of questions in this area, ranging from neighborhood type to size of the town or city; it also offers the chance to examine separately the question of whether your neighborhood has multiunit housing, which is different from whether your personal residence is in multiunit housing.
|
From page 71... ...
housing mix only. The relationship between housing mix and green mode use can be seen in Table 8-8.
|
From page 72... ...
subject whose attitude/SN is negative, but whose environment is encouraging of the behavior, ends up with a nearaverage adoption of the behavior (26%)
|
From page 73... ...
ences in Table 8-11 are not significant. The exception is that, for those not living in a CN, there is a significant difference in transit mode share to work between the high values group and the low values group.
|
From page 74... ...
Auto Availability as a Characteristic of Neighborhood Type A lower level of auto availability is a key characteristic of life in a CN. In our sample, the majority of persons in CNs (51%)
|
From page 75... ...
Personal Values, Urban Form, Auto Availability, and Travel Behavior Table 8-18 shows the derivation of the matrix showing green mode share for all trip purposes, based on the interaction of all three major variables. At the extremes, the best case scenario (i.e., positive attitudes, supportive built environment, and low levels of auto availability)
|
From page 76... ...
Urban/ Environmental Values Group Current CN Status Auto Availability Index Share (% ) Low Auto Availability 64 High Auto Availability 31 In CN Total 51 Low Auto Availability 35 High Auto Availability 18 Not in CN Total 24 Low Auto Availability 49 High Auto Availability 21 High Urban/Environm ental Values Total Total 33 Low Auto Availability 50 High Auto Availability 17 In CN Total 26 Low Auto Availability 20 High Auto Availability 11 Not in CN Total 12 Low Auto Availability 27 High Auto Availability 12 Low Urban/Environm ental Values Total Total 15 Total In CN Low Auto Availability 62 High Auto Availability 25 Total 44 Low Auto Availability 30 High Auto Availability 14 Not in CN Total 18 Low Auto Availability 42 High Auto Availability 16 Total Total 24 n = 276 to 17 Table 8-18.
|
From page 77... ...
77 The Full Sample Green Mode Share = 24% N = 865 High Urban/ Environmental Values Group Green Mode Share = 33% Low Urban/ Environmental Values Group Green Mode Share = 15% N = 398 N = 467 Those with High Urban/Environmental Values Who Live in a Compact Neighborhood Green Share = 51% N = 157 Those with High Urban/Environmental Values Who Do Not Live in a CN Green Share =24% N = 310 Those with Low Urban/Environmental Values Who Live in a CN Green Share = 26% N = 65 Those with Low Urban/Environmental Values Who Do Not Live in a CN Green Share = 12% N = 333 High Urban/Env. Values, CN Location, Low Auto Availability Green Share = 64% n = 96 High Urban/Env Values, non-CN, Low Auto Availability Green Share = 35% n = 104 High Urban/Env Values, non-CN Location, High auto availability Green Share = 18% n = 206 Low Urban/Env.Values, CN Loc.
|
From page 78... ...
78 Current Compact Neighborhood Status Auto Availability Index Green Mode Share, All Trip Purposes (%) Transit Share, All Trip Purposes (%)
|
From page 79... ...
The Variables This structural equation model uses the three variables used previously: (a) a composite variable based on 15 statements reflecting attitudes toward features of an urban neighborhood and toward the environment (urban/environmental values)
|
From page 80... ...
• The Mode Choice Submodel: The path diagram describes several variables associated with green mode share: urban/environmental values, neighborhood type, auto dependence, autos per person, and the demographic values of income per person and gender. This is similar to the content of the Figure 8-2 path diagram, with the addition of auto dependence as a direct independent variable.
|
From page 81... ...
tance of the simultaneous interaction of key variables concerning neighborhood characteristics and their association with various indices of travel behavior concerning walking and transit. Based on the presentation of the data up to this point, three summary observations about the key variables can be made.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.