The use of activity-based modeling to analyze the effect of land-use policies on travel behavior

This paper suggests that in order to analyze the effect of land-use policies on travel behavior an integrated framework that extend travel activity-based models to include various land-use issues such as residential location and work place should be developed and use. The importance of analyzing various land-use policies on travel behavior is continuously increasing as various policies such as transit-oriented developments, mixed land-use, different concentrations schemes, and more broadly Smart Growth, are often suggested as a means to mitigate transportation problems. Given our limited understanding of the effects of the various land-use polices on travel behavior it is imported to develop better approaches to analyze such policies. Activity-based models, that treat travel as a derivation of the demand for personal activities, provides an opportunity to better understand travel behavior as the explicit modeling of activities and the consequent tours and trips enable a more credible analysis of responses to policies and their effect on traffic and air quality. The theoretical framework of activity-based models starts with urban and land-use development as inputs; however, there is a need to translate this framework to analyze specific land-use policies. This paper discusses the advantages and potential of activity-based models for analyzing the effect of land-use policies on travel behavior. It suggests improvements that will extend the general framework to achieve a better understanding of travelers’ responses to various land-use policies and shows its advantages over tip-based models, which simply do not have such capabilities. The improved activity-based approach is illustrated through a case study based on the Portland activity-based model combined with a stated-preference residential choice model. A package of land-use policies— including improved land-use, school quality, safety, and transit service in the city center—is introduced, and its effect on household redistribution and regional travel is tested using this integrated framework. The results of this case study show that the effects of the land-use policies introduced had only marginal effects on regional travel.

[1]  Michael G. McNally,et al.  ACCESSIBILITY OF NEOTRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS: A REVIEW OF DESIGN CONCEPTS, POLICIES, AND RECENT LITERATURE , 1992 .

[2]  Daniel A. Badoe,et al.  Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling , 2000 .

[3]  Marlon G. Boarnet,et al.  The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies , 2001 .

[4]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Neighborhood design and vehicle type choice: Evidence from Northern California , 2006 .

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

[6]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Integration of an Activity-based Model System and a Residential Location Model , 1998 .

[7]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Activity Based Travel Demand Model Systems , 1998 .

[8]  M. Kwan.  Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework , 2010 .

[9]  Michael Wegener,et al.  Applied Models of Urban Land Use, Transport and Environment: State of the Art and Future Developments , 1998 .

[10]  Ming Zhang.  Exploring the relationship between urban form and nonwork travel through time use analysis , 2005 .

[11]  Randall Crane,et al.  The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review , 2000 .

[12]  R. Cervero,et al.  TRAVEL DEMAND AND THE 3DS: DENSITY, DIVERSITY, AND DESIGN , 1997 .

[13]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility , 2006 .

[14]  Eric J. Miller,et al.  Current operational urban land‐use–transport modelling frameworks: A review , 2005 .

[15]  David M Levinson,et al.  Space, money, life-stage, and the allocation of time , 1999 .

[16]  John E. Abraham,et al.  Microsimulating urban systems , 2004, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[17]  Randall Crane,et al.  On Form versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It? , 1995 .

[18]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California , 2005 .

[19]  P. Newman,et al.  Costs of Automobile Dependence: Global Survey of Cities , 1999 .

[20]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Activity‐based approaches to travel analysis: conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems , 1992 .

[21]  R. Dunphy,et al.  TRANSPORTATION, CONGESTION, AND DENSITY: NEW INSIGHTS , 1996 .

[22]  Eric J. Miller,et al.  Integrated Urban Models for Simulation of Transit and Land-Use Policies , 1998 .

[23]  K. Krizek.  Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel , 2003 .

[24]  M. Kwan.  Gender and Individual Access to Urban Opportunities: A Study Using Space–Time Measures , 1999 .

[25]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A retrospective and prospective survey of time-use research , 1999 .

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

[27]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey , 1989 .

[28]  Michael N. Bagley,et al.  The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach , 2001 .

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

[30]  M. Wegener.  Operational Urban Models State of the Art , 1994 .

[31]  R. Crane,et al.  DOES NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN INFLUENCE TRAVEL?: A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS OF TRAVEL DIARY AND GIS DATA , 1998 .

[32]  A. Khattak,et al.  Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA , 2005 .

[33]  Ryuichi Kitamura,et al.  The sequenced activity mobility simulator (SAMS): an integrated approach to modeling transportation, land use and air quality , 1996 .

[34]  R. Cervero.  America's Suburban Centers: The Land Use-Transportation Link , 1989 .

[35]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Measuring Space‐Time Accessibility Benefits within Transportation Networks: Basic Theory and Computational Procedures , 1999 .

[36]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Variation of Activity Patterns with Features of the Spatial Context , 2003 .

[37]  Dinesh Gopinath,et al.  Travel demand model system for the information era , 1996 .

[38]  Bert van Wee,et al.  Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions , 2004 .

[39]  John Bowman,et al.  System of activity-based models for Portland, Oregon , 1998 .

[40]  S. Handy.  Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Nonwork Travel Behavior , 1995 .

[41]  Dick Ettema,et al.  Theories and models of activity patterns , 1997 .

[42]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems , 1991, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[43]  M. Boarnet,et al.  Can Land Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link between Non-Work Travel and Land Use Characteristics , 1996 .

[44]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Experiences with developing ALBATROSS: a learning-based transportation oriented simulation system , 1998 .