Light rail use is more likely on “walkable” blocks: Further support for using micro-level environmental audit measures

Werner, Carol M.; Brown, Barbara; Gallimore, Jonathan

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.003

Cited by 44 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study defines TOD as any dense, mixeduse, and walkable area around a transit station, and TAD as any low-density, single-use, and cardependent station area. The most frequently studied factors for classifying a TOD from other types of station area are residential and employment density (Renne and Ewing, 2013;Kamruzzaman et al, 2015;Laaly, 2014;Pollack et al, 2014;Jeihani et al, 2013;Canepa, 2007;Cervero and Kockelman, 1997;Cervero and Gorham, 1995), land use diversity (Renne and Ewing, 2013;Kamruzzaman et al, 2015;Vale, 2015;Jeihani et al, 2013;Cervero and Kockelman, 1997;Cervero and Gorham, 1995), and walkability or street connectivity (Renne and Ewing, 2013;Vale, 2015;Pollack et al, 2014;Laaly, 2014;Ngo, 2012;Kamruzzaman et al, 2014;Brown and Werner, 2011;Werner, Brown and Gallimore, 2010). Recent studies trying to classify TOD and TAD deal with all three factors in the analysis (Renne and Ewing, 2013;Kamruzzaman et al, 2015;Jeihani et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas

Scheer¹,

Ewing²,

Park³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Type of Report and Period CoveredFinal Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Supplementary Notes AbstractTransit-oriented development (TOD) has gained popularity worldwide as a sustainable form of urbanism; it concentrates development near a transit station so as to reduce auto-dependency and increase ridership. Existing travel behavior studies in the context of TOD, however, are limited in terms of small sample size, inconsistent TOD classification methods, and failure to control for residential self-selection. Thus, this study has three research questions. First, how can we distinguish between Transit-oriented development (TOD) and Transit-adjacent development (TAD)? Second, how do travel behaviors vary between TODs and TADs? Third, how does transportation affordability vary between TODs and TADs? This study utilizes cluster analysis to classify station area types and propensity score matching to control residential self-selection. From cluster analysis with built-environment factors-density, diversity, and walkability-in a half-mile buffer, this study classifies existing station areas as TOD, TAD or Hybrid types. After controlling for residential self-selection, it shows that a TOD motivates its residents to walk more and take transit more while using personal vehicles less. The significant difference between TOD and TAD in both VMT and the number of auto trips demonstrates that TODs make the personal vehicle trips shorter and fewer. Travel behavior in the Hybrid type demonstrates the possibility of gradual and practical change. Finally, the percentage of household income spent on transportation is lower in TOD households than TAD households. This shows that a TOD household is likely to save enough money on vehicle ownership and use that, while it likely spends more on transit, the final result is a significantly lower financial burden from transportation.17.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas

Scheer¹,

Ewing²,

Park³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The IrvineMinnesota Inventory (IMI) is among the most widely applied (20). It has been used to study walking behaviour of students, school children and other residents (20,21,22). Werner et al (20) chose to adapt the IMI in France because audit tools provide somewhat objective collection of environmental data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, this is not only unpractical, but also with the number of tests, some statistical concerns arise as well. Werner et al (20), on the other hand, reorganised some items in order for them to pertain only to a single domain and then they calculated standard scores for each item and aggregated them into scales representing the six domains. Recently, Schopflocher et al (23) failed to support the viability of the scoring methodologies proposed by Boanet et al (26) and Werner et al (20).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting a gis version of the Irvine-Minnesota inventory (IMI) for Bulgarian settings

Dzhambov

Dimitrova

Aleksandrova

2016

Scripta Scientifica Salutis Publicae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION:Various neighbourhood features such as safety, green spaces, aesthetics and maintenance of the built environment, etc. are correlates of health-related behaviours and outcomes. The assessment of the neighbourhood quality by raters, using audit tools, is an objective way to obtain reliable information about those features, and the Irvine-Minnesota Inventory (IMI) is one of the most widely used tools.

show abstract

“…This European Factor could be considered a proxy for walkability due to the high rate of pedestrianization in European cities, but was not further investigated in the study. Finally, Werner et al [4] used micro-level and macro-level environmental measures of walkability for neighborhoods surrounding LRT stations in Salt Lake City to test against LRT usage. Micro-level characteristics such as traffic/crime safety, pedestrian amenities, aesthetics, and others were measured using the Irvine-Minnesota Inventory environmental audit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring walkability and its effect on light rail usage: a comparative study of the USA and Japan

Nawrocki

Nakagawa

Matsunaka

et al. 2014

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With rising awareness of global warming and its consequences, greater efforts are being made to make our cities more sustainable. Among many factors that can lead to more a sustainable future, policies encouraging walking and the use of public transportation can be considered as major priorities in planning. There is a significant body of research concerning the process of rating urban structure according to its ease of access for pedestrians and concerning the relationships between walking and public transportation. However, there are few studies focused on the direct relationship between walking and Light Rail Transit (LRT). This study sought to understand the effect of the so-called walkability of urban areas on LRT usage in the USA and Japan. To achieve this goal, an objective, an internationally applicable method for quantifying walkability, was devised using urban structure and street network data in the USA and Japan. Walkability indices derived using this method was used to measure the effect of walkability in station areas on LRT ridership in both countries. Results show that the urban structure around stations in Japanese cities can generally be considered more walkable than cities in the USA. Moreover, station area walkability has a measurable effect on LRT usage, but only in the USA.

show abstract

Light rail use is more likely on “walkable” blocks: Further support for using micro-level environmental audit measures

Cited by 44 publications

References 47 publications

How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas

How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas

Adapting a gis version of the Irvine-Minnesota inventory (IMI) for Bulgarian settings

Measuring walkability and its effect on light rail usage: a comparative study of the USA and Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About