Specification of a tour-based neighborhood shopping model

This paper presents a state-of-the practice neighborhood shopping travel demand model. The model structure is designed to incorporate decisions across five dimensions of shopping travel, including decisions of: (1) household tour frequency; (2) participating party; (3) shopping tour type; (4) mode, and (5) destination choices using a tour-based nested-logit model. As a neighborhood model, we have also captured the interrelated effects of three main factors associated with shopping travel decisions both within and outside of the neighborhood, including the residential location within the neighborhood, the neighborhood regional setting and the household structure. The model was validated using the travel data collected in three neighborhoods located in the Puget Sound region, WA. Results show that household socio-demographics have significant effects on the decisions for household tour frequency, mode and destination choices, while the characteristics of the traveling party have considerable impacts on the decisions for tour type. The level of service and the zone attractions influence decisions about mode and destination choices. The day of week variable (weekday versus weekend) is statistically significant in all models, indicating that weekday shopping travel decisions differ from weekend, across all five dimensions of interest. The paper concludes with a discussion about how the model can be used to examine policy-related neighborhood issues (e.g. accessibility).

[1]  Michael Duncan,et al.  Balanced Growth, Travel Demand, and Physical Activity , 2006 .

[2]  Daniel A. Badoe,et al.  Factors affecting automobile shopping trip destinations , 1990 .

[3]  R. Cervero,et al.  Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods - eScholarship , 1995 .

[4]  P O Barnard,et al.  Modelling shopping destination choice behaviour using the basic multinomial logit model and some of its extensions , 1987 .

[5]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[6]  R. Cervero,et al.  COMMUTING IN TRANSIT VERSUS AUTOMOBILE NEIGHBORHOODS , 1995 .

[7]  F Spielberg.  THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT: HOW WILL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS RESPOND? , 1989 .

[8]  S. Handy.  Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-work Travel , 1992 .

[9]  Sean T. Doherty.  Should we abandon activity type analysis? Redefining activities by their salient attributes , 2006 .

[10]  Hani S. Mahmassani,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Day-to-Day Trip-Chaining Behavior of Urban Commuters in Two Cities , 1997 .

[11]  R. Kitamura,et al.  A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[12]  Fred L. Hall,et al.  TRIP GENERATION FOR SHOPPING TRAVEL , 1995 .

[13]  M J Demetsky,et al.  METHODOLOGY FOR NONWORK TRAVEL ANALYSIS IN SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES. FINAL REPORT , 1994 .

[14]  Ryuichi Kitamura,et al.  LIFE CYCLE AND HOUSEHOLD TIME-SPACE PATHS: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION , 1982 .

[15]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods , 1996 .

[16]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  Travel Behavior as Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[17]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  ACTIVITY-BASED TRAVEL FORECASTING , 1997 .

[18]  J. Strathman,et al.  Effects of household structure and selected travel characteristics on trip chaining , 1994 .

[19]  Shi Chiang Li,et al.  Land Use Impacts on Trip Generation Rates , 1996 .

[20]  Stephen Gordon,et al.  EFFECT OF NEOTRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN ON TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS , 1994 .

[21]  Dae-Sic Yun,et al.  Modeling the day-of-the-week shopping activity and travel patterns , 1997 .

[22]  T. Amemiya.  On a two-step estimation of a multivariate logit model , 1978 .

[23]  P. Williams,et al.  A Recursive Model of Intraurban Trip-Making , 1988 .

[24]  L. Frank,et al.  Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking , 1994 .

[25]  Brian D. Taylor,et al.  Gender, Race, and Travel Behavior: Analysis of Household-Serving Travel and Commuting in San Francisco Bay Area , 1998 .

[26]  P Jones,et al.  SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ACTIVITY-TRAVEL ANALYSIS AND MODELING , 1981 .

[27]  Yoram Shiftan,et al.  Practical Approach to Model Trip Chaining , 1998 .

[28]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Assessment of Influence of Land Use–Transportation System on Travel Behavior , 1997 .

[29]  E. I. Pas.  The Effect of Selected Sociodemographic Characteristics on Daily Travel-Activity Behavior , 1984 .

[30]  C. Bhat.  Analysis of travel mode and departure time choice for urban shopping trips , 1998 .

[31]  R. Kitamura.  An evaluation of activity-based travel analysis , 1988 .

[32]  Gender Differences in Activities and Mobility in the Netherlands, 1975 to 1990 , 1997 .

[33]  Edward McCormack.  USING A GIS TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF TRAVEL DIARIES , 1999 .

[34]  Reid Ewing,et al.  GETTING AROUND A TRADITIONAL CITY, A SUBURBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD), AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN , 1994 .

[35]  D. Niemeier,et al.  Travel to work and household responsibility: new evidence , 1997 .

[36]  D. McFadden.  Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice , 1981 .

[37]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Nonwork Travel , 1993 .

[38]  Michael Duncan,et al.  'Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? , 2006 .