Skip to main content

A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area

Abstract

This study examined the effects of land use and attitudinal characteristics on travel behavior for five diverse San Francisco Bay Area neighborhoods. First, socio-economic and neighborhood characteristics were regressed against number and proportion of trips by various modes. The best models for each measure of travel behavior confirmed that neighborhood characteristics add significant explanatory power when socio-economic differences are controlled for. Specifically, measures of residential density, public transit accessibility, mixed land use, and the presence of sidewalks are significantly associated with trip generation by mode and modal split. Second, 39 attitude statements relating to urban life were factor analyzed into eight factors: pro-environment, pro-transit, suburbanite, automotive mobility, time pressure, urban villager, TCM, and workaholic. Scores on these factors were introduced into the six best models discussed above. The relative contributions of the socio-economic, neighborhood, and attitudinal blocks of variables were assessed. While each block of variables offers some significant explanatory power to the models, the attitudinal variables explained the highest proportion of the variation in the data. The finding that attitudes are more strongly associated with travel than are land use characteristics suggests that land use policies promoting higher densities and mixtures may not alter travel demand materially unless residents' attitudes are also changed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and Land Use.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cervero R (1989) America's Suburban Centers: The Land-Use Transportation Link.Boston: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dobson R, Dunbar F, Smith CJ, Reibstein D & Lovelock C (1978) Structural models for the analysis of traveler attitude - behavior relationships. Transportation 7: 351-363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ewing R, Haliyur P & Page GW (1994) Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between. Transportation Research Record 1466: 53-62.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Frank LD & Pivo G (1994) Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record 1466: 44-52.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman B, Gordon SP & Peers JB (1994) Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record 1466: 63-70.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Giuliano G (1989) New directions for understanding transportation and land use. Environment and Planning A 21: 145-159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodwin PB (1975) Variations in travel between individuals living in areas of different population density. Planning and Transport Research and Computation Summer Annual Meeting, July.

  9. Gordon P, Richardson HW & Jun M-J (1991) The commuting paradox: Evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn: 416-420.

  10. Goulias KG and Kitamura R (1993) Analysis of binary choice frequencies with limited cases: Comparison of alternative estimation methods and application to weekly household mode choice. Transportation Research 27B(1): 65-78.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Handy S (1992) How Land Use Patterns Affect Travel Patterns: A Bibliography.CPL Bibliography No. 279. Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Handy S (1993) Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for non-work travel. Transportation Research Record 1400: 58-66.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanson S & Schwab M (1987) Accessibility and intraurban travel. Environment and Planning A 19: 735-748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Howard/Stein - Hudson Associates (1993) The Impact of Various Land Use Strategies on Suburban Mobility. Prepared for Middlesex Somerset Mercer Regional Council. Available through NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161 (phone 703-487-4650), Report No. FTA-NJ-08-7001-93-1.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kitamura R, Laidet L, Mokhtarian PL, Buckinger C & Gianelli F (1994) Land Use and Travel Behavior. Report prepared for the State of California Air Resources Board, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-94-27, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA, October.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Levinson HS & Wynn FH (1963) Effects of density on urban transportation requirements. Highway Research Record 2: 38-64.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lyon PK (1984) Time-dependent structural equations modeling: A methodology for analyzing the dynamic attitude - behavior relationship. Transportation Science 18(4): 395-414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McNally MG & Ryan S (1993) A comparative assessment of travel characteristics for neotraditional developments. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

  19. Mogridge MJH (1985) Transport, land use, and energy interaction. Urban Studies 22: 481-492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Muth R (1969) Cities and Housing.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Newman PWG & Kenworthy JR (1989a) Cities and Automobile Dependence: A Sourcebook.Brookfield: Gower Technical.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Newman PWG & Kenworthy JR (1989b) Gasoline consumption and cities: A comparison of US cities with a global survey. Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter: 24-37.

  23. Pendyala RM (1993) Causal Modeling of Travel Behavior Using Simultaneous Equations Systems: A Critical Evaluation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California Davis. University of California Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Research Report Number UCD-ITS-RR-92-19.

  24. Prevedouros PD (1992) Associations of personality characteristics with transport behavior and residence location decisions. Transportation Research 26A(5): 381-391.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pushkarev B & Zupan J (1977) Public Transportation and Land Use Policy.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Steiner RL (1994) Residential density and travel patterns: Review of the literature. Transportation Research Record 1466: 37-43.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tardiff TJ (1977) Causal inferences involving transportation attitudes and behavior. Transportation Research 11: 397-404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tischer ML & Phillips RV (1978) The relationship between transportation perceptions and behavior over time. Transportation 8: 21-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wachs M (1993) The role of land use strategies for improving transportation and air quality. Introductory remarks to the UCLA Extension Public Policy Program Symposium on the Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality Connection, Lake Arrowhead, California, November.

  30. White Mountain Survey Co., Inc. (1991) City of Portsmouth, N.H. Traffic/Trip Generation Study. Prepared for Merwin and Associates, Rancho Cordova, California, December.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia L. Mokhtarian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L. & Laidet, L. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24, 125–158 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017959825565

Download citation

  • attitude -- behavior relationships
  • land use
  • traditional neighborhood developments
  • travel behavior