, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 387–410 | Cite as

Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel

  • Kevin J. Krizek


Communities are increasingly looking to land use planning strategies to reduce drive-alone travel. Many planning efforts aim to develop neighborhoods with higher levels of accessibility that will allow residents to shop closer to home and drive fewer miles. To better understand how accessible land use patterns relate to household travel behavior, this paper is divided into three sections. The first section describes the typical range of services available in areas with high neighborhood accessibility. It explains how trip-based travel analysis is limited because it does not consider the linked (chained) nature of most travel. The second section describes a framework that provides a more behavioral understanding of household travel. This framework highlights travel tours, the sequence of trips that begin and end at home, as the basic unit of analysis. The paper offers a typology of travel tours to account for different travel purposes; by doing so, this typology helps understand tours relative to the range of services typically offered in accessible neighborhoods. The final section empirically analyzes relationships between tour type and neighborhood access using detailed travel data from the Central Puget Sound region (Seattle, Washington). Households living in areas with higher levels of neighborhood access are found to complete more tours and make fewer stops per tour. They make more simple tours (out and back) for work and maintenance (personal, appointment, and shopping) trip purposes but there is no difference in the frequency of other types of tours. While they travel shorter distances for maintenance-type errands, a large portion of their maintenance travel is still pursued outside the neighborhood. These findings suggest that while higher levels of neighborhood access influences travel tours, it does not spur households to complete the bulk of their errands close to home.

accessibility new urbanism tours travel behavior trip purpose urban form 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler T & Ben-Akiva M (1979) A theoretical and empirical model of trip chaining behavior. Transportation Research B 13: 243–257.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva M & Bowman JL (1998) Integration of an activity-based model system and a residential location model." Urban Studies 35(7): 1131–1153.Google Scholar
  3. Bhat CR, Carini JP et al. (1999) Modeling the generation and organization of household activity stops. Transportation Research Record 1676: 153–161.Google Scholar
  4. Boarnet MG & Greenwald MJ (2000) Land use, urban design, and non-work travel reproducing other urban areas' empirical test results in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record: 27–37.Google Scholar
  5. Boamet MG & Sarmiento S (1998) Can land-use policy really affect travel behavior? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies 35(7): 1155–1169.Google Scholar
  6. Bowman JL, Bradley M et al. (1998) Demonstration of an Actively-Based Model System for Portland. 8th World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
  7. Bradley Research and Consulting, Portland Metro et al. (1998) A System of Activity-Based Models for Portland. Google Scholar
  8. Calthorpe P (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cervero R & Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the three Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research. Part D 2(2): 199–219.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke MI, Dix MC et al. (1981) Some recent developments in activity-travel analysis and modeling." Transportation Research Record: 1–8.Google Scholar
  11. Crane R (1996) On form versus function: will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it? Journal of Planning Education and Research 15(2): 117–126.Google Scholar
  12. Crane R (2000) The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretative review. Journal of Planning Literature 15(1): 3–23.Google Scholar
  13. Crane R & Crepeau R (1998) Does neighborhood design influence travel?: a behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D – Transport and Environment 3(4): 225–238.Google Scholar
  14. Darnm D (1982) Parameters of activity behavior for use in travel analysis. Transportation Research 16A(2): 135–148.Google Scholar
  15. Ewing R (1995) Beyond density, mode choice, and single purpose trips. Transportation Quarterly 49(4): 15–24.Google Scholar
  16. Ewing R & Cervero R (2001) Travel and the built environment: synthesis. Transportation Research Board 1780: 87–112.Google Scholar
  17. Ewing R, Haliyur P et al. (1994) "Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between. Transportation Research Record 1466: 53–62.Google Scholar
  18. Golob T (1986) A nonlinear canonical correlation analysis of weekly trip chaining behavior. Transportation Research A 20(5): 385–399.Google Scholar
  19. Gould J & Golob TF (1997) Shopping without travel or travel without shopping? An investigation of electronic home shopping. Transport Reviews 17: 355–376.Google Scholar
  20. Handy SL (1992) Regional versus local accessibility: variations in suburban form and the effects on non-work travel. In City and Regional Planning, Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Handy SL (1993) Regional versus local accessibility: implications for nonwork travel. Transportation Research Record 1400: 58–66.Google Scholar
  22. Handy SL & Clifton KJ (2001) Local shopping as strategy for reducing automobile use." Transportation Research A.Google Scholar
  23. Hanson S (1980) The importance of the multi-purpose journey to work in urban travel behavior. Transportation 9: 229–248.Google Scholar
  24. Jonnalagadda N, Freedman J et al. (2001) Development of microsimulation activity-based model for San Francisco: destination and mode choice models. Transportation Research Record 1777: 25–35.Google Scholar
  25. Kansky K (1967) Travel patterns of urban residents. Transportation Science 1: 261–285.Google Scholar
  26. Kitamura R (1988) An evaluation of activity-based travel analysis. Transportation 15: 9–34.Google Scholar
  27. Kockelman KM (1996) Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance. In City and Regional Planning. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  28. Krizek KJ (2003) Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use – travel behavior research and modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(3): 270–287.Google Scholar
  29. Ma J & Goulias KG (1997) A dynamic analysis of person and household activity and travel patterns using data from the fIrst two waves in the Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Transportation 24(3): 309–331.Google Scholar
  30. Misra R & Bhat CR (2000) Activity travel patterns of non-workers in the San Francisco Bay area: exploratory analysis. Transportation Research Record 1718: 43–51Google Scholar
  31. Murakami E & Ulberg C (1997) The Puget Sound transportation panel. In Kitamura R (ed), Panels in Transportation Planning (pp 159–192). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson D & Niles JS (1998) Market Dynamics and Nonwork Travel Patterns: Obstacles to Transit Oriented Development. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  33. Oppenheim N (1975) A typological approach to individual urban travel behavior prediction. Environment and Planning A 7: 141–152.Google Scholar
  34. Pas E (1982) Analytically derived classifications of daily travel-activity behavior: description, evaluation, and interpretation. Transportation Research Record 879: 9–15.Google Scholar
  35. Pas E (1984) The effect of selected sociodemographic characteristics on daily travel-activity behavior. Environment and Planning A 16: 571–581.Google Scholar
  36. Recker WW & McNally MG (1985) Travel/activity analysis: pattern recognition, classification and interpretation. Transportation Research A 19: 279–296.Google Scholar
  37. Reichman S (1976) Travel adjustments and life styles: a behavioral approach. In Stopher PR & Meyburg AH (eds), Behavioral Travel-Demand Models (pp 143–152). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  38. Shen Q (2000) Spatial and social dimensions of commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(1): 68–82.Google Scholar
  39. Southworth F (1985) Multi-destination, multi-purpose trip chaining and its implications for locational accessibility: a simulation approach. Papers of the Regional Science Association 57: 108–123.Google Scholar
  40. Strathman JG, Dueker KJ et al. (1994) Effects of household structure and selected travel characteristics on trip chaining. Transportation 21: 23–45.Google Scholar
  41. Thill J-C & Thomas I (1987) Toward conceptualizing trip-chaining behavior: a review. Geographical Analysis 19(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
  42. Tri-Met (1993) Planning and Design for Transit. Portland: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon.Google Scholar
  43. Wallace B, Barnes J et al. (2000) Evaluating the Effects of Traveler and Trip Characteristics on Trip Chaining, with Some Implications for TDM Strategies. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Williams P (1988) A recursive model of intraurban trip-making. Environment and Planning A 20: 535–546.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Krizek
    • 1
  1. 1.Urban and Regional Planning Program, Humphrey Institute of Public AffairsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations