Abstract In recent years, there has been a chorus of calls to redesign America's suburbs so that they are less dependent on automobile access and more conducive to transit riding, walking, and bicycling. This article compares commuting characteristics of transit-oriented and auto-oriented suburban neighborhoods, in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Southern California. Transit neighborhoods averaged higher densities and had more gridded street patterns compared to their nearby counterparts with auto-oriented physical designs. Neighborhoods were matched in terms of median incomes and, to the extent possible, transit service levels, to control for these effects. For both metropolitan areas, pedestrian modal shares and trip generation rates tended to be considerably higher in transit than in auto-oriented neighborhoods. Transit neighborhoods had decidedly higher rates of bus commuting only in the Bay Area. Islands of transit-oriented neighborhoods in a sea of freeway-oriented suburbs seem to have negligible ...
[1]
Adib Kanafani,et al.
Transportation Demand Analysis
,
1983
.
[2]
Carol E. Hoffecker,et al.
Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States
,
1987
.
[3]
Robert Cervero,et al.
Transit-Supportive Development in the United States: Experiences and Prospects - eScholarship
,
1993
.
[4]
Shuming Yan,et al.
TRANSIT-BASED APPROACH TO LAND USE DESIGN
,
1992
.
[5]
M. McNally,et al.
A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS FOR NEO-TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
,
1992
.
[6]
P. Katz.
The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community
,
1993
.
[7]
S. Handy.
Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-work Travel
,
1992
.
[8]
Charles A. Johnson,et al.
NEO-TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS: A SOLUTION TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION?.
,
1992
.
[9]
J. M. Thomson,et al.
Great cities and their traffic
,
1977
.