Effects of household structure and accessibility on travel

The concept of accessibility has been widely used in the transportation field, commonly to evaluate transportation planning options. The fundamental hypothesis of many studies related to accessibility could be “greater accessibility leads to more travel”. However, several studies have shown inconsistent results given this common hypothesis, finding instead that accessibility is independent of the trip/tour frequency. In addition, empirical aggregate urban modeling applications commonly produce either non-significant or negative (wrong sign) relationships between accessibility and the trip/tour frequency. For this reason, many practitioners rarely incorporate a measure of accessibility into trip/tour generation models out of consideration of the induced demand. In this context, this study examined the effect of accessibility in urban and suburban residences on the maintenance and discretionary activity tour frequencies of the elderly and the non-elderly using household travel survey data collected in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of Korea. The major finding of this study is that a higher density of land use and better quality of transportation service do not always lead to more tours due to the presence of intra-household interactions, trip chaining, and different travel needs by activity type. This finding implies that accessibility-related studies should not unquestioningly accept the common hypothesis when they apply accessibility measures to evaluate their transportation planning options or incorporate them into their trip/tour generation models.

[1]  R. D. Ramsey,et al.  ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT SERVICE AREAS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1992 .

[2]  Hugh F. Gunn,et al.  DISAGGREGATE TRIP DISTRIBUTION MODELS , 1984 .

[3]  R. Kitamura,et al.  Accessibility in a Metropolis: Toward a Better Understanding of Land Use and Travel , 2001 .

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

[5]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Modelling Transport: Ortúzar/Modelling Transport , 2011 .

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

[7]  Graham Currie,et al.  Exploring the trip chaining behaviour of public transport users in Melbourne , 2011 .

[8]  Andrew Daly,et al.  Estimating choice models containing attraction variables , 1982 .

[9]  Michael Florian,et al.  Optimal strategies: A new assignment model for transit networks , 1989 .

[10]  N. Ohmori,et al.  TRAVEL BEHAVIOR DATA COLLECTED USING GPS AND PHS , 2000 .

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

[12]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Modelling the Choice of Residential Location , 1977 .

[13]  R. Kitamura,et al.  Traveler Destination Choice Behavior: Effects of Time of Day, Activity Duration, and Home Location , 1998 .

[14]  P S Sriraj,et al.  Analysis of Transit Quality of Service and Employment Accessibility for the Greater Chicago, Illinois, Region , 2008 .

[15]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .