Using household travel surveys to adjust ITE trip generation rates
The performance of three adjustments were tested using 195 establishment-level vehicle trip generation datasets compiled from three independent sources. Using this data, the performances of four land-use categories were tested. The overall findings suggest that the simplest of the three adjustments developed provided similar results to the more complex adjustment methods. Moreover, adjustments applied using the “pooled” land-uses category also provided similar results to the more detailed segmentation of travel survey data. Both of these findings punctuate the need for a simple, urban adjustment for trip generation estimates.
ARUP, 2012. Trip Genie: Context-sensitive trip generation rates. [Online] Available at: tripgenie.org [Accessed 15 March 2013].
Cervero, R. & Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research: D, 2(3), pp. 199-219.
Clifton, K. J., Currans, K. M., Cutter, A. C. & Schneider, R., 2012. Household Travel Surveys in a Context-Based Approach for Adjusting ITE Trip Generation Rates in Urban Contexts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 2307, pp. 108-119.
Clifton, K. J., Currans, K. M. & Muhs, C. D., 2012. Contextual Influences on Trip Generation, OTREC-RR-12-13, Portland, Oregon: Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC).
Clifton, K. J., Currans, K. M. & Muhs, C. D., 2013. Adjusting ITE's Trip Generation Handbook for Urban Context. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Volume forthcoming.
Crane, R., 2000. The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(3), pp. 3-23.
Daisa, J. M. et al., 2009. Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California: Phase II Final Report, California: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
D'sousa, E. et al., 2012. Neighborhood Environment for Active Transport--Geographic Information System--version 5.1, s.l.: University of Minnesota Center for Transport Studies.
Ewing, R. & Cervero, R., 2001. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 1780, pp. 87-114.
Ewing, R. & Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), pp. 265-294.
Ewing, R., DeAnna, M. & Li, S.-C., 1996. Land Use Impacts on Trip Generation Rates. Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, Volume No. 1518, pp. 1-6.
Gard, J., 2007. Innovative Intermodal Solutions for Urban Transportation Paper Award: Quantifying Transit-Oriented Development's Ability to Change Travel Behavior. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 80(11), pp. 42-46.
Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. and Criterion Planners/Engineers, 1999. The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill Versus Greenfield Development: A Comparative Case Study Analysis: EPA Pub. Number 231-R-99-005, s.l.: Environmental Protection Agency.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004. Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition: An ITE Recommended Practice. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. Trip Generation 8th Edition: An Information Report. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
JHK & Associates, Pacific Rim Resources, and SG Associates, 1996. DRAFT Final Report: Accessibility Measure and Transportation Impact Factor Study, Salem, Oregon: for the Oregon Department of Transportation/Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Transportation and Growth Management Program.
Lee, R. et al., 2011. Evaluation of Operation and Accuracy of Five Available Smart Growth Trip Generation Methodologies (UCD-ITS-RR-11-12), Davis, CA.: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments: Adjusting Site-Level Vehicle Trip Generation Using URBEMIS, San Francisco, California: s.n.
New York City, 2010. City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR): Chapter 16, New York City, NY: Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination.
Rizavi, A. & Yeung, A., 2010. Urban Commuting Trends - Comparing Trip Generation Practices. Vancouver, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2010. Trip Generation for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region., San Diego, CA.: s.n.
San Francisco Planning Department, 2002. Transportation Impact Analysis Guildelines for Environmental Review, San Francisco, California: City and County of San Francisco.
Schneider, R. J., 2011. Understanding Sustainable Transportation Choices: Shifting Routine Automobile Travel to Walking and Bicycling (UCTC-DISS-2011-01), Berkeley, CA: University of California Transportation Center.
Schneider, R. J., Shafizadeh, K. & Handy, S. L., 2013. California Smart-Growth Trip Generation Rates Study, Davis, California: University of California, Davis for the California Department of Transportation.
Shafizadeh, K. et al., 2012. Evaluation of the Operation and Accuracy of Available Smart Growth Trip Generation Methodologies for Use in California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Issue 2307, pp. 120-131.
Walters, J., 2009. Statewide Improvements of Tools for Regional & Local Smart-Growth Planning, Caltrans: Fehr & Peers.