Influences of Neighborhood Characteristics and Personal Attitudes on University Commuters’ Public Transit Use

This study examined the links between attitudes, the built environment, and travel behavior on the basis of data from the Ohio State University's 2012 Campus Transportation Survey. The analysis results indicated that attitudes might have explained travel behavior better than the built environment. Survey respondents were asked questions about their attitudes on public transit use, and their answers were grouped into new attitudinal factors by using principal component analysis. Then, new neighborhood categories were created by K-means cluster analysis by means of built-environment and land use variables (population density, employment density, housing density, median age of structures, percentage of single-family housing, and intersection density). As a result of this analysis, discrete neighborhood categories, such as urban high-density and residential neighborhoods, and urban low-density and mixed-use neighborhoods, were created. Then, differences in attitudes toward public transit were analyzed across these new neighborhood categories. Binary logit models were estimated to determine the influence of these neighborhood categories as well as personal attitudes on public transit use after sociodemographic characteristics were controlled for. The results indicated that attitudes were more strongly associated with travel behavior than with neighborhood characteristics. The findings of this study will aid in the formation of a better understanding of public transit use by highlighting the effects of attitudes and neighborhood characteristics in transit use as well as differences in attitudes between neighborhood types.

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

[2]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods? , 2005 .

[3]  Gabriela Beirão,et al.  Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study , 2007 .

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

[5]  Xinyu Cao,et al.  Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies , 2008 .

[6]  Ram M. Pendyala,et al.  Analysis of the Role of Traveler Attitudes and Perceptions in Explaining Mode-Choice Behavior , 1999 .

[7]  Florian Heiss,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[8]  Jason W. Osborne,et al.  Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. , 2005 .

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

[10]  Frank S. Koppelman,et al.  Importance of traveler attitudes in the choice of public transportation to work: findings from the Regional Transportation Authority Attitudinal Survey , 2011 .

[11]  Robert J. Schneider,et al.  Household Travel Surveys in Context-Based Approach for Adjusting ITE Trip Generation Rates in Urban Contexts , 2012 .

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

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

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

[15]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  Self-Selection in the Relationship between the Built Environment and Walking: Empirical Evidence from Northern California , 2006 .

[16]  A. El-geneidy,et al.  The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home–work location, and demographics on commuting distances , 2010 .

[17]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment , 2010 .

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

[19]  Gulsah Akar,et al.  Influence of Neighborhood Types on Trip Distances: Case Study of Central Ohio , 2013 .

[20]  Gulsah Akar,et al.  Role of Gender and Attitudes on Public Transportation Use , 2014 .

[21]  Maria Johansson,et al.  The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice , 2006 .

[22]  Diana Adler,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 2016 .

[23]  Carlos J. L. Balsas,et al.  Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses , 2003 .

[24]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis , 2001 .

[25]  Jiangping Zhou,et al.  From better understandings to proactive actions: Housing location and commuting mode choices among university students , 2014 .

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

[27]  Gulsah Akar,et al.  Travel Choices and Links to Transportation Demand Management , 2012 .

[28]  F. T. Paine,et al.  Consumer attitudes toward auto versus public transport alternatives. , 1969 .

[29]  Xiu-jing Cao Disentangling the influence of neighborhood type and self-selection on driving behavior: an application of sample selection model , 2009 .

[30]  Y. Shiftan,et al.  Transit market research using structural equation modeling and attitudinal market segmentation , 2008 .

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