Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling

Badoe, Daniel A.; Miller, Eric J.

doi:10.1016/s1361-9209(99)00036-x

Cited by 429 publications

(250 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This relationship can only be studied over a long time period because both infrastructure development and land use development are lengthy processes, and moreover, the influence of one on the other is likely to take even more time to become evident (Wegener, Gnad, and Vannahme 1986). One significant reason for the lack of long-term studies into this interaction is the lack of consistent data over a longer period (Badoe and Miller 2000). The few studies that have managed to overcome this difficulty have measured changes in accessibility as a result of changes in the infrastructure network and its consequence for accessible population or population density, usually within different degrees of proximity to the infrastructure (Atack et al 2010;Axhausen, Froelich, and Tschopp 2011;Koopmans, Rietveld, and Huijg 2012;Duranton and Turner 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of rail infrastructure and its impact on urbanization in the Randstad, the Netherlands

Kasraian

Maat

Wee

2015

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term, large-scale empirical studies on the simultaneous development of transport infrastructure and the built environment are scarce. This paper provides a long-term study of the development of the railway network and its impact on the built-up area-and vice versa-using the case study of the Randstad in the Netherlands between 1850 and 2010. The analysis is both qualitative and quantitative. We describe the shares of the built-up area in concentric buffers of 1-kilometer intervals from railway stations and estimate binomial logit models to predict the likelihood of new stations being built based on the amount of the preceding and subsequent built-up area and the likelihood that a new station might have encouraged further growth. Results show that during the early days stations followed existing urbanization patterns. But as time went by, new stations were more likely to be located in undeveloped areas and less likely to be located within the established built-up areas, which were already serviced by existing stations. Moreover, they prompted further growth, increasing the likelihood of more urbanization in their vicinity. IntroductionA key question in urban studies is how urban areas expand. Understanding the determinants of urban growth and the consequences of their interaction is critical information for many people, from economic geographers to spatial planners and policymakers who aim to guide and channel future urban development. Many have argued the structuring role played by transport infrastructure in shaping the cities over time (e.g., Hoyt 1939;Mumford 1961;Rodrigue, Comtois, and Slack 2009). Furthermore, it has been observed that transport infrastructure, urbanization (more generally referred to as land use), and travel behavior are all interrelated. Infrastructure improvements increase accessibility, making land more valuable for further development; conversely, land development creates travel demand, and con-

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of rail infrastructure and its impact on urbanization in the Randstad, the Netherlands

Kasraian

Maat

Wee

2015

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Ds are development density, land use diversity, street design, destination accessibility, and distance to transit. They have been shown to affect household travel decisions in more than 200 peer-reviewed studies (see the meta-analysis by Ewing & Cervero, 2010; also see literature reviews by Badoe & Miller, 2000;Brownstone, 2008;Cao, Mokhtarian & Handy, 2009a;Cervero, 2003;Crane, 2000;Ewing & Cervero, 2001;Handy, 2005;Heath, Brownson, Kruger, Miles, Powell & Ramsey, 2006;McMillan, 2005McMillan, , 2007Pont, Ziviani, Wadley, Bennet & Bennet, 2009;Saelens, Sallis & Frank, 2003;Salon, Boarnet, Handy, Spears & Tala, 2012;Stead & Marshall, 2001). …”

Section: Shortcomings Of Cnt's and Lai's Transportation Cost Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing?: Final Report

Ewing¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Type of Report and Period CoveredFINAL REPORT 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Supplementary Notes AbstractThis paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15 percent of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the U.S., we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at more than 18,000 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15 percent for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15 percent threshold. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered by HUD when establishing eligibility for rental assistance subsidies.17.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, past studies of the relationship between household travel patterns and the built environment have been suspect of any inferential comparison of the disaggregate housing unit to a more aggregate representation of neighborhood (Goulias and Kim, 2001;Bhat and Zhao, 2002) and have confirmed the inherent risk of aggregating household data into the zones traditionally exhibited in four-step travel demand models (Chikaraishi et al, 2009). To avoid this modeling pitfall, travel behavior research has continued to advance in the direction of employing activity-based travel demand models that rely extensively on disaggregate built environment and socioeconomic measures in order to properly capture their effects on observed household travel (Badoe and Miller, 2000;Davidson et al, 2007). Understanding these relationships has become ever more imperative as regional travel demand models continue to increasingly account for non-motorized travel modes (Rodriguez and Joo, 2004).…”

Section: Travel Behavior and The Built Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wider Dissemination of Household Travel Survey Data Using Geographical Perturbation Methods

Clifton¹,

Gehrke²

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling

Cited by 429 publications

References 14 publications

Development of rail infrastructure and its impact on urbanization in the Randstad, the Netherlands

Development of rail infrastructure and its impact on urbanization in the Randstad, the Netherlands

How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing?: Final Report

Wider Dissemination of Household Travel Survey Data Using Geographical Perturbation Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About