Examining interaction effects among land-use policies to reduce household vehicle travel: An exploratory analysis

Kwangyul Choi; Robert Paterson

doi:10.5198/jtlu.2019.1337

PDF

Published

2019-11-15

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2019)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

How to Cite

Choi, K., & Paterson, R. (2019). Examining interaction effects among land-use policies to reduce household vehicle travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1337

Examining interaction effects among land-use policies to reduce household vehicle travel: An exploratory analysis

Kwangyul Choi

University of Calgary

Robert Paterson

The University of Texas at Austin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1337

Keywords: VMT, land-use policies, threshold effects, interaction effects, Austin

Abstract

Numerous studies have suggested that land-use policies can reduce vehicle travel through mode shifting and reduced trip lengths and generation of fewer or more efficient trips. The findings from previous studies also suggest that the combined effect of two or more land-use policies can be significant, although the effects of individual policies appear to be modest. These studies present area-wide impacts of land-use policies on travel and suggest that their effects are additive. However, very little is known about how each land-use policy interacts with the others at different levels of development intensity to reduce vehicle travel. In this study, we explore how three well-known land-use strategies (densification, mixed-use development, and street network improvement) interact with each other by testing possible combinations of land-use factors and focus on how these interactive effects vary by the level of development intensity. Employing ordinary least squares regression analysis using a dataset created for the Austin metropolitan statistical area (MSA) (using 2006 Austin Travel Survey data), we examine the impact of land use on household vehicle travel. Our findings suggest that interaction effects occur, but they vary by development intensity. The results of this study show the importance of considering both threshold (development intensity) and interaction (combination of policies) effects in understanding how land-use factors do and do not affect travel (based on their interactive opposed to only their direct and additive effects). Though this paper uses data from just one MSA and thus is merely suggestive, it does point to a possibly more nuanced use of the commonly prescribed planning and design policy variable to account for variation in effectiveness based on differences in development intensity. For example, we find that greater land-use intensification has higher efficacy in changing vehicle travel behavior in areas with relatively higher development intensity. Future research should include data from a broader array of metropolitan areas and incorporate additional predictor variables that were unavailable for this analysis.

Author Biographies

Kwangyul Choi, University of Calgary

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Haskayne School of Business and Faculty of Environmental Design

Robert Paterson, The University of Texas at Austin

Associate Professor, Community and Regional Planning

References

Bagley, M. N., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2002). The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science, 36(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680200083

Bauman, A. E., Reis, R. S., Sallis, J. F., Wells, J. C., Loos, R. J. F., Martin, B. W., & Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group. (2012). Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people physically active and others not? The Lancet, 380(9838), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1

Bhat, C. R., Astroza, S., Sidharthan, R., Alam, M. J. B., & Khushefati, W. H. (2014). A joint count-continuous model of travel behavior with selection based on a multinomial probit residential density choice model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 68, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.05.004

Bhat, C. R., & Guo, J. Y. (2007). A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41(5), 506–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2005.12.005

Boarnet, M. G., & Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of urban form on travel. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brownstone, D., & Golob, T. F. (2009). The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2008.09.002

CAMPO. (2010). CAMPO 2035 regional transportation plan appendices. Retrieved from www.campotexas.org

Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews, 29(3), 359–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640802539195

Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and mode choice: Toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7(4), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00024-4

Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6

Choi, K. (2018). The influence of the built environment on household vehicle travel by the urban typology in Calgary, Canada. Cities, 75, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.006

Choi, K., & Zhang, M. (2017). The net effects of the built environment on household vehicle emissions: A case study of Austin, TX. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 50, 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.036

de Abreu E Silva, J., Goulias, K. G., & Dalal, P. (2012). Structural equations model of use patterns, location choice, and travel behavior in Southern California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2323(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.3141/2323-05

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1780(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/1780-10

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766

Ewing, R., Hamidi, S., Gallivan, F., Nelson, A. C., & Grace, J. B. (2013). Combined effects of compact development, transportation investments, and road user pricing on vehicle miles traveled in urbanized areas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2397(1), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.3141/2397-14

Ewing, R., Hamidi, S., Gallivan, F., Nelson, A. C., & Grace, J. B. (2014). Structural equation models of VMT growth in US urbanized areas. Urban Studies, 51(14), 3079–3096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013516521

Ewing, R., Tian, G., Goates, J., Zhang, M., Greenwald, M. J., Joyce, A., … Greene, W. (2015). Varying influences of the built environment on household travel in 15 diverse regions of the United States. Urban Studies, 52(13), 2330–2348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014560991

Hong, J. (2017). Non-linear influences of the built environment on transportation emissions: Focusing on densities. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1), 229–240. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.815

Johnston, R. A., & Rodier, C. J. (1999). Synergisms among land use, transit, and travel pricing policies. Transportation Research Record, 1670(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.3141/1670-01

Kenworthy, J. (2006). The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable. Environment & Urbanization, 18(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247806063947

Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Laidet, L. (1997). A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, 24(2), 125–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017959825565

Levinson, D. M. (1998). Accessibility and the journey to work. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(1), 11–21.

Mokhtarian, P. L., & Cao, X. (2008). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(3), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.07.006

Pinjari, A. R., Pendyala, R. M., Bhat, C. R., & Waddell, P. A. (2011). Modeling the choice continuum: An integrated model of residential location, auto ownership, bicycle ownership, and commute tour mode choice decisions. Transportation, 38(6), 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9360-y

Rawlins, R., & Paterson, R. (2009). Sustainable buildings and communities: Climate change and the case for federal standards. Cornell Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 335.

Rodier, C., Haydu, B., Linesch, N. J., Alemi, F., & Circella, G. (2014). Synergistic effects of transit, land use, and vehicle pricing policies on vehicle travel and greenhouse gas emissions. Presented at Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2007). Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Housing Policy Debate, 18(1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2007.9521598

Stevens, M. R. (2017). Does compact development make people drive less? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044

Van Acker, V., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Witlox, F. (2014). Car availability explained by the structural relationships between lifestyles, residential location, and underlying residential and travel attitudes. Transport Policy, 35, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.006

Van Acker, V., Van Wee, B., & Witlox, F. (2010). When transport geography meets social psychology: Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 30(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902943453

Van Wee, B. (2009). Self-selection: A key to a better understanding of location choices, travel behaviour and transport externalities? Transport Reviews, 29(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902752961

Wang, K. (2013). Causality between built environment and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record, 2397(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.3141/2397-10

Zhang, M. (2004). The role of land use in travel mode choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976383