Winter Seminar Tuesdays 2:30 to 5:20
UrbDP 598: Quantifying urban form for practice and research
Anne Vernez Moudon [moudon@u.washington.edu]
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.