Advertisement

Development of a neighborhood commute mode share model using nationally-available data

  • Robert J. Schneider
  • Lingqian Hu
  • Joseph Stefanich
Article

Abstract

Practitioners often use demand models to predict how neighborhood-level land use, infrastructure, demographic, and other changes may impact transportation systems. Few of the models available to predict automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel are based on easily-accessible data, which creates barriers for transportation agencies with limited data or modeling resources. We help fill this gap by developing a fractional multinomial logit model that estimates United States neighborhood work commute mode shares using existing, nationally-available data from 5000 randomly-selected, non-adjacent census tracts. After controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, the model shows that public transit, walk, and bicycle commuting are associated with higher population and employment density, more housing constructed prior to 1940, and more rental housing. Public transit and walk commuting are associated with being in a Northeastern state, automobile commuting is associated with being in a Southern state, and bicycle commuting is associated with being in a West Coast state. Validation of the model using a separate set of 1000 census tracts and application of the model in the Milwaukee metropolitan region show promise but also highlight several limitations of this approach. This sketch-planning model is a building block for future practically-oriented neighborhood commute mode share models.

Keywords

Transit Walk Bicycle Commute Fractional multinomial logit model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Office of Research through the Research and Creative Activities Support (RACAS) program award AAA3537. We thank the Office of Research staff for their support and the RACAS proposal reviewers for their helpful input. We also thank the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) for sharing population and employment projections for this study.

Author contributions

RJ Schneider: Analysis approach; Modeling; Results summary; Validation summary; Manuscript writing; Manuscript revisions. L Hu: Analysis approach; Literature review; Summary statistics; Draft analysis text. J Stefanich: Literature review; Data collection; Sample selection; GIS analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baltes, M.: Factors influencing nondiscretionary work trips by bicycle determined from 1990 US census metropolitan statistical area data. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1538, 96–101 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  3. Bopp, M., Kaczynski, A.T., Campbell, M.E.: Health-related factors associated with mode of travel to work. J. Environ. Public Health (2013). doi: 10.1155/2013/242383 Google Scholar
  4. Buehler, R.: Determinants of bicycle commuting in the washington, dc region: the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transp. Res. Part D 17, 525–531 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buehler, R., Pucher, J.: Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation 39(2), 409–432 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cambridge Systematics: PSRC travel model documentation (for version 1.0): final report. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation and Puget Sound Regional Council. http://www.psrc.org/assets/1511/model_doc_final_.pdf (2007)
  7. Cantwell, M., Caulfield, B., O’Mahony, M.: Examining the factors that impact public transport commuting satisfaction. J. Public Transp. 12(2), 1–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on empirical findings. Transp. Rev. 29(3), 359–395 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatman, D.G.: Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: evidence using new data and methods. Environ. Plan. A 4, 1072–1089 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clifton, K.J., Currans, K.M., Cutter, A.C., Schneider, R.J.: Household travel surveys in context-based approach for adjusting ITE trip generation rates in urban contexts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2307, 108–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifton, K.J., Singleton, P.A., Muhs, C.D., Schneider, R.J., Lagerwey, P: Improving the representation of the pedestrian environment in travel demand models: phase I, final report. Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, OTREC-RR-13-08. http://otrec.us/project/510 (2014)
  12. Clifton, K.J., Singleton, P.A., Muhs, C.D., Schneider, R.J.: Development of a pedestrian demand estimation tool. National Institute for Transportation and Communities, NITC-RR-677. http://ppms.otrec.us/media/project_files/NITC-RR-677_Final_Report.pdf (2015)
  13. Craig, C.L., Brownson, R.C., Cragg, S.E., Dunn, A.L.: Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a study examining walking to work. Am. J. Prev. Med. 23(2S), 36–43 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dill, J., Carr, T.: Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: if you build them, commuters will use them. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1828, 116–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76(3), 265–294 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, L.D., Pivo, G.: Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp. Res. Rec. 1466, 44–52 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. Handy, S.L., Xing, Y., Buehler, T.J.: Factors associated with bicycle ownership and use: a study of 6 small US cities. Transportation 37, 967–985 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hankey, S., Lindsey, G.: Facility-demand models of peak-period pedestrian and bicycle traffic: a comparison of fully-specified and reduced-form models. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2586, 48–58 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heinen, E., van Wee, B., Maat, K.: Bicycle use for commuting: an overview of the literature. Transp. Rev. 30(1), 59–96 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krizek, K.J.: Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel. Transportation 30, 387–410 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuzmyak, J.R., Walters, J., Bradley, M., Kockelman, K.M.; Estimating bicycling and walking for planning and project development: a guidebook. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 770. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_770.pdf (2014)
  22. LSA Associates: SCAG regional travel demand model and 2008 model validation. Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments. http://www.scag.ca.gov/dataandtools/documents/validationsummaryreport_scag2008val_2012_06_05.pdf (2012)
  23. McGuckin, N., Srinivasan, N.: The journey-to-work in the context of daily travel: for the census data for transportation planning conference. Presented at the Census Data for Transportation Planning Conference. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/conferences/2005/censusdata/resource-journey-to-work.pdf (2005)
  24. Mullahy, J.: Multivariate fractional regression estimation of econometric share models. J. Econom. Methods 4(1), 71–100 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Sallis, J.F.: Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am. J. Prev. Med. 27(1), 67–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papke, L.E., Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. J. Appl. Econom. 11(6), 619–632 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parkin, J., Wardman, M., Page, M.: Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation 35(1), 93–109 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Seinen, M.: Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transp. Res. Part A 45, 451–475 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. Purvis, C.: Travel Demand Models for the San Francisco Bay Area (BAYCAST-90): Technical Summary. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland (1997)Google Scholar
  30. Ramalho, E.A., Ramalho, J.J., Murteira, J.M.: Alternative estimating and testing empirical strategies for fractional regression models. J. Econ. Surv. 25(1), 19–68 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redman, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T., Hartig, T.: Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: a research review. Transp. Policy 25, 119–127 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salon, D.: Estimating pedestrian and cyclist activity at the neighborhood scale. J. Transp. Geogr. 55, 11–21 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider, R.J., Henry, T., Mitman, M.F., Stonehill, L., Koehler, J.: Development and application of a pedestrian volume model in San Francisco, California. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2299, 65–78 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, R.J.: Measuring transportation at a human scale: an intercept survey approach to capture pedestrian activity. J. Transp. Land Use 6(3), 43–59 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider, R.J., Stefanich, J.: Neighborhood characteristics that support bicycle commuting: analysis of the top 100 US census tracts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2520, 41–51 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singleton, P.A., Clifton, K.J.: Pedestrians in regional travel demand forecasting models: state-of-the-practice. Presented at transportation research board annual meeting, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar
  37. Sivakumar, A., Bhat, C.: Fractional split-distribution model for statewide commodity-flow analysis. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1790, 80–88 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC): VISION 2050: a regional land use and transportation plan. http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/VISION_2050/2050RegLandUseTranspPlan.htm (2017)
  39. StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. StataCorp LP, College Station (2007)Google Scholar
  40. United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2009–2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  41. United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey: Methodology, Webpage. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology.html (2015a)
  42. United States Census Bureau: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics: Data, Webpage. http://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/ (2015b)
  43. United States Congress: Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/text (2015)
  44. United States Department of Health and Human Services: Step It Up! The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/walking-and-walkable-communities/call-to-action-walking-and-walkable-communites.pdf (2015)
  45. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT): Beyond traffic 2045: trends and choices. Draft Report. https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Draft_Beyond_Traffic_Framework.pdf (2015a)
  46. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT): Transportation for a New Generation: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014–2018. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2014-2018-strategic-plan_0.pdf (2015b)
  47. United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center: 1981–2010 US Climate Normals. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data (2014)
  48. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Household Travel Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov (2009)
  49. Wang, Z., Wolman, A.L.: Payment choice and the future of currency: insights from two billion retail transactions. White Paper, Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Schneider
    • 1
  • Lingqian Hu
    • 1
  • Joseph Stefanich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urban PlanningUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations