Winter Seminar Tuesdays 2:30 to 5:20 UrbDP 598: Quantifying urban form for practice and research Anne Vernez Moudon [[email protected]] Readings for February 28, 2006 Provided through email: Hess, P., A. V. Moudon and M. G. Logsdon (2001). "Measuring Land Use Patterns for Transportation Research." Transportation Research Record 1780: 17-24. Moudon, A. V., P. M. Hess, J. M. Matlick and N. Pergakes (2002). "Pedestrian Location Identification Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas with Potentially High Latent Demand for Pedestrian Travel." Transportation Research Record 1818: 94-101. Moudon, A. V. and C. Lee (2003). "Walking and Biking: An Evaluation of Environmental Audit Instruments." American Journal of Health Promotion 18(1): 21-37. In this article, focus on the discussion of the Portland instruments. Available at Urban Form Lab: Ewing, R. R., and Cervero, R. (2002). "Travel and the Built Environment - A Synthesis." Transportation Research Record (1780), 87-114 In all of these articles, focus on the different ways to measure land use mix, especially in the Portland instruments. Summary of Older Research on Land Use Mix in the Transporation Literature Research Project Area of Analysis Significant Relationships (Cervero 1989) Suburban employment centers Walk/bike and transit shares are greater where retail uses complement office uses (National comparison) (Cambridge Systematics 1994) ¼ mile radius around work sites in Los Angeles area Transit share is greater with substantial land-use mixing or convenience services nearby. Walk/bike share is greater where substantial land-use mixing or convenience services nearby. (Cervero 1991) Six U.S. Metropolitan areas Transit share is greater in mixed use and multi story buildings. Average vehicle occupancy is higher in mixed use buildings (Cervero 1996) Eleven U.S. Metropolitan areas Use of transit and walk/bike is more likely where commercial uses are nearby. Work trips are shorter where commercial uses are nearby. For short trips, mixed uses induce walk/bike commuting as much as highrise development (Cervero and Kockelman 1997) San Francisco Bay Area, CA VMT for nonwork trips is lower where intensity factor or amount of vertical mixing is greater. (Loutzenheiser 1997) San Francisco Bay Area, CA Walking to a transit station is more likely where retail uses predominate around transit stations Source: (Ewing and Cervero 2002) Further references Cambridge Systematics. (1994). "The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Strategies on Commuting Behavior." Cervero, R. (1989). America's Suburban Centers - The Land Use-Transportation Link, Unwin Hyman, Boston, Mass. Cervero, R. (1991). "Land Use and Travel at Suburban Activity Centers." Transportation Quarterly, 45, 479-491. Cervero, R. (1996). "Mixed Land Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey." Transportation Research A, 30, 361-377. Cervero, R., and Kockelman, K. (1997). "Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design." Transportation Research D, 2, 199-219. Ewing, R. R., and Cervero, R. (2002). "Travel and the Built Environment - A Synthesis." Transportation Research Record (1780), 87-114. Loutzenheiser, D. R. (1997). "Pedestrian Access to Transit: Model of Walk Trips and Their Design and Urban Form Determinants Around Bay Area Rapid Transit Stations." Transportation Research Record, 1604, 40-49. Rutherford, G. S., J.M. Ishimaru, and E.D. McCormack. (1995). "The Transportation Impacts of Mixed Land-Use Neighborhoods." Washington State Transportation Commission, Seattle, WA. McCormack, E; Rutherford, GS; Wilkinson, MG. (2001). Travel Impacts of Mixed Land Use Neighborhoods In Seattle, Washington. Transportation Research Record 1780: 2532 Abstract: In response to suburban transportation problems, developers and planners have suggested that mixing land uses can reduce automobile dependency by making more goods and services available within walking, biking, and short driving distances. This view has resulted in a neotraditional planning movement that promotes neighborhoods designed with traditional characteristics including a mix of land uses. However, few studies have empirically explored the transportation implications for these neighborhoods. This issue is addressed by using a travel diary collected in three greater Seattle area neighborhoods characterized by neotraditional neighborhood elements including mixed land use. These data were compared with those collected in an identical diary from individuals throughout the region. It was found that residents of the mixed land use study neighborhoods in Seattle traveled 28% fewer kilometers (miles) than residents in adjacent areas and up to 120% fewer kilometers than residents in suburban areas. This trend of lower travel distances held across different socioeconomic characteristics. However, the differences in travel distances among the areas were not seen when travel time was considered. The daily travel time was about 90 min/person (including walking), regardless of where that person lived and that person's socioeconomic status. One implication of this finding is that if a neotraditional neighborhood development does make shopping and other chores less time-consuming, there may simply be more time in the travel budget for additional regional travel. This suggests that travel from the neotraditional neighborhoods needs to be examined in a regional context. Thomas and Potter. (1993). "Mixed use development standard study prepared for the City of Seattle." Department of Construction and Land Use, Department of Neighborhoods, City of Seattle.