Built environment and car driving distance in a small city context

Abstract

This article focuses on the effect of built-environment factors on travel behavior in the context of small cities. Urban size and spatial context are central to travel behavior analysis because of the spatiotemporal nature of transportation. Different urban structural attributes exert travel behavioral influences at different spatial scales (local vs. regional) and urban sizes. Due to this inherent geographic dimension in travel studies, findings from larger urban areas may not be transferable to small cities. Despite this, however, small cities remain scantily represented in the literature. Using multivariate analysis on survey data from three small cities in Norway, this paper finds that the built-environment effects on travel behavior are highly influenced by regional characteristics and the city’s center structure (poly-centered vs. single centered). Residential proximity to the city center leads to reduced car driving distance through its distance-minimizing effect to concentrations of facilities for local travel. At the regional scale, proximity to the city center influences car driving distance via the higher likelihood among centrally located commuters of choosing transit as their commute mode.

Individual and geographic variations in the propensity to travel by active modes in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

“…In summary, the results indicate that more compact and mixed uses of land tend to be more favorable to the use of active modes, a relevant result in Vitoria-Gasteiz, where car trips that could be replaced by active modes could reach 40%, according to (Delso et al, 2018). More generally, the findings in this paper support previous research on the factors that associate with active travel (e.g., Cervero, 1996;Ewing and Cervero, 2010;Naess, 2012), and offer validation of previous research but for smaller urban areas (Wolday, 2018) and other findings from Nordic Countries (Naess and Jensen, 2004;Wolday, 2018).…”

“…The influence of urban form in travel behavior at the city scale has often found to be significant. Despite this, although it is widely accepted in the literature that urban structure is relevant in travel behavior in large metropolitan areas (Ewing and Cervero, 2010;Naess et al, 2017;Stevens, 2017), smaller cities are not well represented in the literature (Naess and Jensen, 2004;Wolday, 2018). Research on active travel in small and medium-sized cities is of interest.…”

How interventions in master plans affect public transport competitiveness versus cars: a case study of two small and two medium-sized city regions

“…Research has shown that cities with a monocentric structure have a higher share of public transport passengers compared with polycentric cities, where the share of car drivers is higher (Engebretsen et al, 2018;Naess, Strand et al, 2019;Naess, Tønnesen et al, 2019;Wolday, 2018;Wolday et al, 2019). Dense, compact cities are easier to provide with a good public transport service and have a higher share of public transport passengers, whereas low-density and sprawling urban development tends to increase the use of private cars (Cao et al, 2019;Graham et al, 2018;Naess et al, 2017Naess et al, , 2018Naess, Strand et al, 2019;Naess, Tønnesen et al, 2019).…”

“…Dense, compact cities are easier to provide with a good public transport service and have a higher share of public transport passengers, whereas low-density and sprawling urban development tends to increase the use of private cars (Cao et al, 2019;Graham et al, 2018;Naess et al, 2017Naess et al, , 2018Naess, Strand et al, 2019;Naess, Tønnesen et al, 2019). An exception to this is small cities, where transport in the city center more often involves walking or cycling, while public transport and the car are more attractive for longer trips, such as commutes to other cities (Wolday, 2018).…”

“…The shares of cyclists and pedestrians in these cities are larger than the shares of public transport passengers. It has been found that, in small cities, intra-urban distances are mainly traveled by walking or cycling unless by car, while public transport is mainly used for longer commutes (Wolday, 2018). Due to this, it is likely that measures that are positive for pedestrians and cyclists in small cities will be mainly beneficial for walking and cycling and not have a large effect on public transport competitiveness.…”