Residential location, commuting and non-work travel in two urban areas of different size and with different center structures

Abstract

Residential location, commuting and non-work travel in two urban areas of different size and with different center structures.

Flights Dominate Travel Emissions of Young Urbanites

“…Of multiple urban form variables tested in models, distance to the main city center was the strongest predictor of emissions and remained significant after controlling for sociodemographic variables and attitudes, which supports the results by Naess [7]. Our results also emphasize the importance of attitudes and preferences related to travel modes and residential location in predicting the level of emissions from local travel, but they do not undermine the role of the urban form, which has been shown to have a causal effect on travel behavior [11,12].…”

“…We also found significant reductions in local transport emissions in Reykjavik, although in Reykjavik, even the most centrally located dwellers typically possess cars and generate a relatively high amount of emissions from car travel. Our results emphasize that densification should focus on densifying areas close to the main city center and main concentrations of jobs, not necessarily local urban design characteristics [12].…”

“…Several studies focusing on private transport and local travel have generally concluded that distance to the city center and other urban form characteristics correlate with car use, vehicle distances traveled, and emissions [6][7][8][9]. Despite continuing "chicken or the egg" debates, e.g., on residential self-selection [10], the link has an established causal character [11,12]. Despite this, land-use and transport planning may not be the most effective or sufficient strategies for mitigating emissions from…”

Reallocation of Road and Street Space in Oslo

“…A main strategy for achieving this is developing land-use and transport systems that contribute to reduced transport demand, shorter trips and shifts in the modal split towards less frequent car use (Ministry of Local Government andModernisation 2015, Ministry of Transport andCommunications, 2017). This strategy largely leans on theoretical and empirical knowledge concerning how and why the spatial structure (Hurlimann and March 2012;Newman and Kenworthy, 2015;Naess, 2012;Naess et al, 2019;Rode et al, 2017;Wolday et al, 2019), as well as absolute and relative qualities of the transport-systems (Börjesson et al, 2012;Cairns et al 2001;Downs, 1962Downs, , 2004Fishman et al, 2014;Goodwin, 1996;Litman, 2018;Noland and Lem, 2002;Tennøy et al, 2019aTennøy et al, ,2019bWalker, 2012), affect travel behaviour and traffic volumes, as illustrated in Figure 1 (see Tennøy, 2012 for further explanations). Hence, there is a relatively widespread agreement on how land-use and transport systems ought to be developed to reduce or limit urban road-traffic volumes: 1) land-use development as central, urban densification and transformation rather than sprawl; 2) improving conditions for walking and bicycling; 3) improving public transport services, and 4) physical and fiscal restrictions to regulate private car traffic (Downs, 2004;Banister, 2008;Newman and Kenworthy, 2015;Rode et al, 2017;Tennøy, 2012;.…”

“…This also makes walking to public stops more attractive, and therefore increases public transport competitiveness.. All this also contributes to achieving objectives like those mentioned above, for instance improved public health and more vibrant city centres. It can also make living in dense urban areas more attractive, and thus reduce traffic volumes in the city, as those living and/or working in dense inner city areas and city centres generate less traffic than those living and working elsewhere (Newman and Kenworthy, 2015;Naess et al, 2019, Wolday et al, 2019.…”