Volume List  / Volume 2 (4)

Article

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRIVATE MOTORIZED TRIPS INDICATORS IN REDUCING CAR USAGE

DOI: 10.7708/ijtte.2012.2(4).05


2 / 4 / 347-358 Pages

Author(s)

Mehdi Moeinaddini - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia -

Zohreh Asadi-Shekari - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia -

Muhammad Zaly Shah - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia -


Abstract

Neighborhoods with similar design may have different travel behavior due to the impacts of socio-economic indicators. There are also some effective indicators such as residents’ income, age, and self-selection factors related to this case that cannot be evaluated easily, which question the reliability of previous efforts to describe the effects of private motorized trips indicators on car usage universally. On the other hand, private motorized trips indicators are effective factors that influence travel behavior but these indicators have not been evaluated in considerable studies. This paper introduces a multiple-linear regression analysis to estimate the relationship of private motorized trips indicators and car usage in various cities in different parts of the world with various socio-economic contexts. So, the results of this study are reliable enough to illustrate this relationship with international scale. The significant private motorized trips factors are also identified in this research for being utilized in car reduction strategies in urban areas.


Download Article

Number of downloads: 1063


Acknowledgements:

The authors wish to thank all of those who supported this research for their useful comments during the completion. The research data underlying this paper were funded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).


References:

Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Moeinaddini, M.; Shah, M.Z. 2012. A Disabled Pedestrian Level Of Service Method For Evaluating And Promoting Inclusive Walking Facilities On Urban Streets, Journal of Transportation Engineering. Accepted for publication. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000492.

 

Behbehani, R.; Pendakur, V.; Armstrong-Wright, A. 1984. Singapore Area Licensing Scheme: A review of the impact. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 55 p.

 

Bento, A.M.; Cropper, M.L.; Mobarak, A.M.; Vinha, K. 2005. The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States, The Review of Economics and Statistics. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0034653054638292, 87(3): 466-478.

 

Boarnet, M.G.; Joh, K.; Siembab, W.; Fulton, W.; Nguyen, M.T. 2011. Retrofitting the suburbs to increase walking: Evidence from a land use-travel study, Urban Studies. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098010364859, 48(1): 129-159.

 

Boarnet, M.; Crane, R. 2001. Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. New York: Oxford University Press. 240 p.

 

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

 

Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. 1997. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6, 2(3): 199-219.

 

Chapman, J.; Frank, L. 2004. Integrating travel behavior and urban form data to address transportation and air quality problems in Atlanta. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. 304 p.

 

Chatman, D.G. 2008. Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity and price effects on household non-work travel, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.02.003, 42(7): 1008-1030.

 

Crane, R. 1996. On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it?, Journal of Planning Education and Research. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9601500204, 15(2): 117-126.

 

Cuesta, D.; Taboada, A.; Calvo, L.; Salgado, J.M. 2008. Short- and medium-term effects of experimental nitrogen fertilization on arthropods associated with Calluna vulgaris heathlands in north-west Spain, Environmental Pollution. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.073, 152(2): 394-402.

 

DKS. 2007. Assessment of Local Models and Tools for Analyzing Smart-Growth Strategies - Final Report. Irvine: University of California. 196 p.

 

Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. 2001. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1780-10, 1780: 87-114.

 

Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. 2010. Travel and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Planning Association. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766, 76(3): 265-294.

 

Ewing, R.; Greenwald, M.J.; Zhang, M.; Walters, J.; Feldman, M.; Cervero, R.; Thomas, J. 2009. Measuring the impact of urban form and transit access on mixed use site trip generation rates-Portland pilot study. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Frank, L.D.; Engelke, P. 2005. Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: Walkable places and the exposure to air pollution, International Regional Science Review. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0160017604273853, 28(2): 193-216.

 

Frank, L.D.; Kavage, S.; Greenwald, M.; Chapman, J.; Bradley, M. 2009. I-PLACE3S health & climate enhancements and their application in King County. Seažle, W.A.: King County HealthScape. 54 p.

 

Handy, S.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P. 2005. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behaviour? Evidence from Northern California, Transportation Research D: Transport and Environment. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002, 10(6): 427-444.

 

Handy, S.; Mokhtarian, P.L. 2005. Which Comes First: The Neighborhood Or The Walking. Available from Internet: httžp://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/walking_or_neighborhood.pdf.

 

Hess, P.; Moudon, A.; Snyder, M.; Stanilov, K. 1999. Site Design and Pedestrian Travel, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. DOI: hžttp://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1674-02, 1674: 9-19.

 

Joh, K.; Boarnet, M.G.; Nguyen, M.T. 2009. Interactions between race/ethnicity, ažitude, and crime: Analyzing walking trips in the South Bay Area [CD]. In 88th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 21 p.

 

Kuzmyak, R.J.; Praž, R.H. 2003. TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 95: Chapter 15-Land Use and Site Design provides information on the relationships between land use/site design and travel behavior. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. 146 p.

 

Larsen, O. 1995. The toll cordons in Norway: an overview, Journal of Transport Geography. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(95)00018-X, 3(3): 187-197.

 

Litman, T. 2009. Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 34 p.

 

Loukopoulos, P.; Jakobsson, C.; Ga Rling, T.; Schneider, C.M.; Fujii, S. 2004. Car-user responses to travel demand management measures: Goal setting and choice of adaptation alternatives, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2004.02.003, 9(4): 263-280.

 

Morris, H. 2004. Commute Rates on Urban Trails: Indicators From the 2000 Census, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1878-14, 1878: 116-121.

 

Naess, P. 2009. Residential Self-Selection and Appropriate Control Variables in Land Use: Travel Studies, Transport Reviews. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441640802710812, 29(3): 293-324.

 

Nelson, P.; Baglino, A.; Harrington, W.; Safirova, E.; Lipman, A. 2007. Transit in Washington, D.C.: Current Benefits and Optimal Level of Provision. Resources for the Future, Journal of Urban Economics. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.02.001, 62(2): 231-251.

 

Plaut, P.; Boarnet, M. 2003. New Urbanism and the Value of Neighborhood Design, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(3): 254-265.

 

Ryan, S.; Mcnally, M. 1995. Accessibility of Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Review of Design Concepts, Policies, and Recent Literature, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0965-8564(94)E0008-W, 29(2): 87-105.

 

Salomon, I.; Mokhtarian, P.L. 1997. Coping with congestion: Understanding the gap between policy assumptions and behavior, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00003-5, 2(2): 107-123.

 

Schimek, P. 1996. Land use, transit and mode split in Boston and Toronto. In Proceedins of the ACSP/AESOP joint international congress.

 

Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. 1965. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples), Biometrika, 52(3-4): 591-611.

 

Stead, D. 2001. Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. DOI: httžp://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b2677, 28(4): 499-528.

 

Targa, F.; Clifton, K. 2005. The built environment and trip generation for non-motorized travel, Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 8(3): 55-70.

 

UITP. 2006. Mobility in cities Database. International Association of Public Transport (UITP) [CD].

 

UNDP. 2011. Human Development Report. United Nations Development Programme. Available from Internet: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/download/.


Quoted IJTTE Works



Related Keywords