What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods?

The academic literature on the impact of urban form on travel behavior has increasingly recognized that residential location choice and travel choices may be interconnected. We contribute to the understanding of this interrelation by studying to what extent commute mode choice differs by residential neighborhood and by neighborhood type dissonance—the mismatch between a commuter's current neighborhood type and her preferences regarding physical attributes of the residential neighborhood. Using data from the San Francisco Bay Area, we find that neighborhood type dissonance is statistically significantly associated with commute mode choice: dissonant urban residents are more likely to commute by private vehicle than consonant urbanites but not quite as likely as true suburbanites. However, differences between neighborhoods tend to be larger than between consonant and dissonant residents within a neighborhood. Physical neighborhood structure thus appears to have an autonomous impact on commute mode choice. The analysis also shows that the impact of neighborhood type dissonance interacts with that of commuters' beliefs about automobile use, suggesting that these are to be reckoned with when studying the joint choices of residential location and commute mode.

[1]  Richard W Curry ATTITUDES TOWARD TRAVEL : THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERCEIVED MOBILITY TRAVEL LIKING, AND RELATIVE DESIRED MOBILITY , 2000 .

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

[3]  Michael N. Bagley,et al.  A Methodology for the Disaggregate, Multidimensional Measurement of Residential Neighbourhood Type , 2001 .

[4]  D. Hensher,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions and australian commuters’ attitudes and behavior concerning abatement policies and personal involvement , 1997 .

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

[6]  R. Cervero MIXED LAND-USES AND COMMUTING: EVIDENCE FROM THE AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY , 1996 .

[7]  R. Law Beyond ‘women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility , 1999 .

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

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

[10]  Marlon G. Boarnet,et al.  Travel by design : the influence of urban form on travel , 2001 .

[11]  Robert Cervero,et al.  Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework , 2002 .

[12]  Frank S. Koppelman,et al.  Attitudinal Analysis of Work/School Travel , 1981 .

[13]  Petter Næss,et al.  Travelling Distances, Modal Split and Transportation Energy in Thirty Residential Areas in Oslo , 1995 .

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

[15]  D. Hensher,et al.  Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport , 2000 .

[16]  Satoshi Fujii,et al.  What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change , 2003 .

[17]  Lothlorien S. Redmond,et al.  Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely 'Derived' , 2001 .

[18]  Sumeeta Srinivasan,et al.  TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AT THE HOUSEHOLD LEVEL: UNDERSTANDING LINKAGES WITH RESIDENTIAL CHOICE , 2002 .

[19]  Mark N. Harris,et al.  A Monte Carlo Study of Tests for the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Property , 1996 .

[20]  Olle Hagman,et al.  MOBILIZING MEANINGS OF MOBILITY: CAR USERS' CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOODS AND BADS OF CAR USE , 2003 .

[21]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled , 2005 .

[22]  Mark D. Uncles,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1987 .

[23]  S. Hanson,et al.  Accessibility and Intraurban Travel , 1987 .

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

[25]  Nick Willams Achieving sustainable urban form , 2001 .

[26]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type , 2004 .

[27]  Roberta M. Feldman,et al.  Settlement-Identity , 1990 .

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

[29]  Lothlorien S. Redmond Identifying and Analyzing Travel-Related Attitudinal, Personality, and Lifestyle Clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area , 2000 .

[30]  Jonathan Levine Access to Choice , 1999 .

[31]  Robert Cervero,et al.  Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay area , 1996 .

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

[33]  Michael Duncan,et al.  Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis , 2002 .

[34]  T. Golob,et al.  An attitudinal modal choice model , 1976 .

[35]  B. Wee,et al.  Preferences for modes, residental location and travel behaviour : The relevance for land-use impacts on mobility , 2002 .

[36]  Tim Schwanen,et al.  Does dissonance between desired and current residential neighbourhood type affect individual travel behaviour? An empirical assessment from the San Francisco Bay area , 1998 .

[37]  M.William Sermons,et al.  ASSESSING TRAVELER RESPONSIVENESS TO LAND AND LOCATION BASED ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY SOLUTIONS , 2001 .