Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, 43:1073 | Cite as

Impacts of self-selection and transit proximity on commute mode choice: evidence from Taipei rapid transit system

  • Yu-Hsin TsaiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Debate over how land use and self-selection affect travel behavior continues. Prior research contributes limited empirical evidence to this debate, and characterizing self-selection remains problematic. This empirical research explores the impacts of self-selection and proximity to transit at both residence and workplace. The research hypothesis is self-selection and proximity to transit increase the probability of workers commuting by rapid rail transit. To conduct this research, a station-exit passenger survey was conducted along the Taipei Rapid Transit System. Analysis methods include binomial logit modeling and sensitivity analysis. Research results support the idea that transit proximity to both work and residence increase the probability of transit commuting, but the hypothesis about the impact of self-selection is only partly supported. Policy implications suggest that, on one hand, increasing density around transit stations could realize unfulfilled self-selection; on the other hand, improved quality-of-life characteristics in neighborhoods around station areas may induce residents and companies to relocate to the neighborhood, thereby increasing residents’ and workers’ probabilities of commuting by transit.

JEL Classification

R14 

References

  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagley MN, Mokhtarian PL (2002) The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. Ann Reg Sci 36: 279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boarnet MN, Crane R (2001) Travel by design: the influence of urban form on travel. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao X-Y, Handy S, Mokhtarian PL (2006) The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 33: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cervero R (1996) California’s transit village movement. J Public Transport 1(1): 103–130Google Scholar
  6. Cervero R (2007) Transit-oriented development’s ridership bonus: a product of self-selection and public policies. Environ Plan A 39: 2068–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervero R, Duncan M (2002) Residential self selection and rail commuting: a nested logit analysis. UCTC Working Paper, Berkeley: http://www.uctc.net/papers/604.pdf
  8. Clark WAV, Deurloo MC, Dieleman FM (2006) Residential mobility and neighborhood outcomes. Housing Stud. 21: 323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crane R (2000) The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretative review. J Plan Lit 15(1): 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewing R, Cervero R (2001) Travel and the built environment—synthesis. Transport Res Rec 1780: 87–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Executive Yuan of Taiwan Government (2005) Urban and regional development statistics. http://www.cepd.gov.tw/upload/URBA/Statistic/Urds/94URDS@47546.47266827328@.pdf
  12. Giuliano G (1995) The weakening transportation-land use connection. Transport Res Rec 1466:63–70; (Access, 6:3–11)Google Scholar
  13. Handy S, Cao X-Y, Mokhtarian PL (2005) Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transport Res D, 10, pp 427–444.Google Scholar
  14. Handy S, Cao X-Y, Mokhtarian PL (2006) Self-selection in the relationship between built environment and walking: Evidence from Northern California. J Am Plan Assoc 72(1): 55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarvis H (2003) Dispelling the myth that preference makes practice in residential location and transport behaviour. Housing Stud 18(4): 587–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaohsiung City Government (2006) http://www.krtco.com.tw
  17. Krizek KJ (2003a) Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter. J Am Plan Assoc 69(3): 265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krizek KJ (2003b) The complex role of urban design and theoretical models of physical activity. Prog Plan Mag Plann Netw 157: 28–29Google Scholar
  19. Levine J (2005) Zoned out: regulation, markets, and transportation-land use choice. RFF Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Levine J, Inam A, Torng G-W (2005) A choice-based rationale for land use and transportation alternatives: evidence form Boston and Atlanta. J Plan Educ Res (24): 317–330Google Scholar
  21. McFadden DL (1978) Modelling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist A, Lundqvist L, Snickars F, Weibull J(eds) Spatial interaction theory and planning models. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  22. McFadden DL (2001) Economic choices. Am Econ Rev 91(3): 351–378Google Scholar
  23. Mokhtarian PL, Cao X (2008) Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transport Res B 42: 204–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwanen T, Mokhtarian PL (2004) The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environ Plan B 31: 759–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwanen T, Mokhtarian PL (2007) Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: evidence from the San Francisco Bay area. Housing Policy Debate 18: 171–207Google Scholar
  26. Svenson O (1992) Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: a frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision consolidation. Acta Psychologica 80: 143–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salomon I, Ben-Akiva M (1983) The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models. Environ Plann A 15: 623–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwanen T, Mokhtarian PL (2005a) What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods. J Transport Geogr 13: 83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwanen T, Mokhtarian PL (2005b) What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled. Transport Res D 10: 127–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheiner J, Kasper B (2003) Lifestyles, choice of housing location and daily mobility: The lifestyle approach in the context of spatial mobility and planning. Int Soc Sci J 55: 319–322Google Scholar
  31. Taipei City Government (2004) Monthly statistical report of transportation, Taipei City. http://www.dot.taipei.gov.tw/ch/
  32. Taipei County Government (2004) http://www.ris.tpc.gov.tw/p9/person_hose.cfm
  33. Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation (2008) General information on Taipei Rapid Rail Transit systems. http://www.trtc.com.tw/c/future.asp
  34. Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation (2006) Yearly report of Taipei Rapid Rail Transit systems.—2006 http://www.trtc.com.tw/img/all/A61/report2006.pdf
  35. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2006a) WPP2004 annual population indicators. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/WPP2004_SUP_F2_Annual_Population_Indicators.zip
  36. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2006b) WPP2004 annual population. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/WPP2004_SUP_F3_Annual_Population_Indicators_Percentage.zip
  37. Waddell P (1993) Exogenous workplace choice in residential location models: is the assumption valid?. Geogr Anal 25: 65–75Google Scholar
  38. Weisbrod GE, Lerman SR, Ben-Akiva M (1980) Tradeoffs in residential location decisions: transportation versus other factors. Transport Policy Decis Mak 1: 13–26Google Scholar
  39. Wikipedia (2006) List of selected cities by population density. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_selected_cities_by_population_density

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Land EconomicsNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations