IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v30y2003i2p219-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accessibility and Mode-Destination Choice Decisions: Exploring Travel in Three Neighborhoods in Puget Sound, WA

Author

Listed:
  • Thirayoot Limanond
  • Debbie A Niemeier

Abstract

Despite the popularity of the neotraditional development concept, attempts to investigate the effectiveness of various mixed-use core (MUC) designs in terms of induced localized walking trips are rare. In this study, we use the logsum measure of accessibility derived from a random utility model to investigate how neighborhood design and regional setting affect mode and destination choices for shopping and how these effects vary by income and day of week. We then use the random utility model to simulate changes in the design configuration of the neighborhood MUC and evaluate the effects of the changes on within -neighborhood-accessibility and travel-decision parameters. Our results provide insight on how traditional neighborhood residents choose destinations and modes for their shopping travel and how the geometric design of the MUC can affect travel decisions. We found that local and regional accessibility have interrelated effects on the choice decisions of traditional residents, which results in variations in travel decisions over neighborhood space. In addition, these variations appear even after controlling for income groups and day of week. In simulations evaluating the effectiveness of alternative MUC designs, we find that the optimal MUC design is the one that maximizes proximity to all residential locations in the neighborhood. That is, MUC designs that are confined to the center of the neighborhood are less effective in inducing within -neighborhood shopping.

Suggested Citation

  • Thirayoot Limanond & Debbie A Niemeier, 2003. "Accessibility and Mode-Destination Choice Decisions: Exploring Travel in Three Neighborhoods in Puget Sound, WA," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 30(2), pages 219-238, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:30:y:2003:i:2:p:219-238
    DOI: 10.1068/b12846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b12846
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b12846?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryan, S. & McNally, M. G., 1995. "Accessibility of neotraditional neighborhoods: A review of design concepts, policies, and recent literature," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 87-105, March.
    2. Handy, Susan L., 1992. "Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-work Travel," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7gs0p1nc, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thirayoot Limanond & Debbie Niemeier, 2004. "Effect of land use on decisions of shopping tour generation: A case study of three traditional neighborhoods in WA," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 153-181, May.
    2. Reilly, Michael & Landis, John, 2003. "The Influence of Built-Form and Land Use on Mode Choice," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt46r3k871, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Crane, Randall & Crepeau, Richard, 1998. "Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel?: Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4pj4s7t8, University of California Transportation Center.
    4. Pierre Filion & Karen Hammond, 2003. "Neighbourhood Land Use and Performance: The Evolution of Neighbourhood Morphology over the 20th Century," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 30(2), pages 271-296, April.
    5. Kelobonye, Keone & McCarney, Gary & Xia, Jianhong (Cecilia) & Swapan, Mohammad Shahidul Hasan & Mao, Feng & Zhou, Heng, 2019. "Relative accessibility analysis for key land uses: A spatial equity perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 82-93.
    6. Dominic Stead, 2001. "Relationships between Land Use, Socioeconomic Factors, and Travel Patterns in Britain," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 28(4), pages 499-528, August.
    7. Park, Sungjin, 2008. "Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0ct7c30p, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Chen, Cynthia & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 2008. "A Review and Discussion of the Literature on Travel Time and Money Expenditures," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt51d696jh, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    9. Holz-Rau, Christian & Scheiner, Joachim, 2020. "Raum und Verkehr - ein Feld komplexer Wirkungsbeziehungen: Können Interventionen in die gebaute Umwelt klimawirksame Verkehrsemissionen wirklich senken?," Forschungsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Reutter, Ulrike & Holz-Rau, Christian & Albrecht, Janna & Hülz, Martina (ed.), Wechselwirkungen von Mobilität und Raumentwicklung im Kontext gesellschaftlichen Wandels, volume 14, pages 76-101, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    10. Pierre Filion, 2001. "Suburban Mixed-Use Centres and Urban Dispersion: What Difference do they Make?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(1), pages 141-160, January.
    11. Bagley, Michael N, 1999. "Incorporating Residential Choice into Travel Behavior-Land Use Interaction Research: A Conceptual Model with Methodologies for Investigating Causal Relationships," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2ws1x83f, University of California Transportation Center.
    12. Cao, Xinyu, 2006. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt07q5p340, University of California Transportation Center.
    13. Grazi, Fabio & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Spatial organization, transport, and climate change: Comparing instruments of spatial planning and policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 630-639, November.
    14. Jilong Zhao & Xinran Hao & Yang Yang, 2023. "Research on Urban Sustainability Indicators Based on Urban Grain: A Case Study in Jinan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-22, September.
    15. Daniel Hess, 2012. "Walking to the bus: perceived versus actual walking distance to bus stops for older adults," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 247-266, March.
    16. Houshmand E. MASOUMI, 2014. "A Theoretical Approach To Capabilities Of The Traditional Urban Form In Promoting Sustainable Transportation," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 44-60, February.
    17. Frans M. Dieleman & Martin Dijst & Guillaume Burghouwt, 2002. "Urban Form and Travel Behaviour: Micro-level Household Attributes and Residential Context," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(3), pages 507-527, March.
    18. Crane, Randall, 1995. "On Form Versus Function: Will the "New Urbanism" Reduce Traffic or Increase It?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7bj9g6bg, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. Guerra, Erick Strom, 2013. "The New Suburbs: Evolving travel behavior, the built environment, and subway investments in Mexico City," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt88t7k9p5, University of California Transportation Center.
    20. Genevieve Giuliano, 2000. "Land Use Policy and Transportation: Why We Won't Get There from Here," Working Paper 8649, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:30:y:2003:i:2:p:219-238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.