Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Third Edition: Chapter 15, Land Use and Site Design (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 90-100
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 90... ...
15-90 The modelers conclude that the significance in many models of neighborhood vitality, readily evident in Table 15-44, indicates a strong relationship between non-auto mode usage and urban form in San Francisco. Notably, not-good vitality was negatively related to choice of the mode in walk, bicycle, and transit mode models.
|
From page 91... ...
15-91 Density, mixed land uses, centrality of place and being at a focal point of transportation services all increase the "opportunity" of taking care of one's daily activities with a minimum expenditure of time and resources for travel. Increased study of relationships between land use and travel suggests that it is this "opportunity" provided by having everything closer together -- along with the associated transportation infrastructure that makes interaction among "opportunity sites" faster -- that most influences travel behavior, rather than density per se.
|
From page 92... ...
15-92 Figure 15-7 Formulae for Kockelman Urban Form Variables Where K = Number of actively developed hectares in tract, and Xik = 1 if central active hectare's use type differs from that of neighboring hectare (Xik = 0 otherwise) C R R C R R Example, where: C = Commercial I = Industrial R = Residential Middle hectare has a Dissimilarity Index value of 4/8, since 4 of the 8 adjacent zones have a different land use.
|
From page 93... ...
15-93 The urban form measures were tested for significance and causality in regression models of total household VMT, non-work home-based VMT, auto ownership, personal vehicle choice, and walk/bike choice. Demographic variables tested included household size, per-member income, and auto ownership, which itself was estimated making use of the three urban form indices.
|
From page 94... ...
15-94 The "Transportation Service Levels" discussion to follow highlights how density increases the number of people available to use a transit service (the transit market) and may thereby synergistically lead to better service.
|
From page 95... ...
15-95 those in the mixed-use neighborhoods. The average length of trip tours was shorter in the mixed use communities, for example, 7.1 versus 11.4 miles for home-to-work tours, 6.1 versus 6.9 miles for home-to-other tours, and 8.3 versus 13.0 miles for home-to-home tours (no stop over 90 minutes)
|
From page 96... ...
15-96 captivity was 85 percent for middle-income commuters who both lived and worked in low accessibility areas. Although this example and results for lower income commuters suggest that accessibility at the residence was found to be somewhat more important than at the workplace, for higher income commuters a slight reversal was estimated, with auto captivity rates of 41 percent if they lived in high and worked in low accessibility areas, and 38 percent if they lived in low and worked in high accessibility areas.
|
From page 97... ...
15-97 Research by Kockelman, set forth under "Density" -- "Density and Other Indicators at the Behavioral Level" -- "Density as a Proxy," arrived at not too dissimilar conclusions with San Francisco Bay Area travel data and much more detailed geographic information. In Kockelman's work, density was found to be insignificant in direct estimation of VMT per household.
|
From page 98... ...
15-98 of transit service within a defined geographic area. All other things being equal, the greater the number of people, the greater will be transit ridership, in direct proportion.
|
From page 99... ...
15-99 This particular effect then has potential for combining with the lower attractiveness of auto travel in high density areas to induce substantially different mode shares where densities are high enough. Estimates of threshold densities to support various types of transit service are presented in the "Related Information and Impacts" section of this chapter under "Transit Service Feasibility Guidelines." Other Effects and Complexities of Density In research discussed earlier with respect to auto ownership, the 1990 NPTS was used to examine other differences among households at different density levels as well.
|
From page 100... ...
15-100 transit, suburban life, automotive mobility, time pressure, urban villages, highway construction and management, and work style (workaholic)
|
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.