Advertisement

Land use variables in trip generation models: The case of the light rail transit in Tel Aviv

  • Avigail Ferdman
  • Daniel Shefer
  • Shlomo Bekhor

Abstract

Transportation and urban land use maintain a complex, symbiotic relationship. Transportation affects land use by improving accessibility to urban functions, and the built environment affects travel through its distribution and density. It is important to explore these dynamics in order to understand the effects that determine urban and metropolitan daily travel.

Keywords

Mode Choice Dependency Ratio Residential Density Transportation Research Record Trip Purpose 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews FM, Morgan JN, Sonquist JA, Klem L (1973) Multiple Classification Analysis. 2nd edn. University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  2. Asensio J (2002) Transport Mode Choice by Commuters to Barcelona’s CBD. Urban Studies 39:1881–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviram H (2001) Evaluating the Impact of Urban Transportation Projects on Land Values. Haifa: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  4. Badoe DA, Miller EJ (2000) Transportation — Land Use Interaction: Empirical Findings in North America and Their Implications for Modelling. Transportation Research Part D 5:235–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernick M, Cervero R (1997) Transit Villages in the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Breheny MJ (1982) The Contradictions of the Compact City; A Review. In: Breheny MJ (ed) Sustainable Development and Urban Form. Pion, London, pp 138–159Google Scholar
  7. CBS — Central Bureau of Statistics (1998) Travel Habits Survey 1996/7. JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  8. CBS — Central Bureau of Statistics (1999) Transportation File; 1995 Census. JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervero R (1993) Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California. Working Paper, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero R (1996a) Jobs-Housing Balance Revisited: Trends and Impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:492–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cervero R (1996b) Mixed Land Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A 30:361–377Google Scholar
  12. Cervero R (2001) Efficient Urbanisation: Economic Performance and the Shape of the Metropolis. Urban Studies 38:1651–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity and Design. Transportation Research Part D 2:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatman DG (2003) How Density and Mixed Uses at the Workplace Affect Personal Commercial Travel and Commute Mode Choice. Transportation Research Record 1831:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunphy RT, Fisher K (1996) Transportation, Congestion and Density: New Insights. Transportation Research Record, 1552:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewing R, Cervero R (2001) Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record 1780:87–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewing R, DeAnna M, Li SC (1996) Land Use Impacts on Trip Generation Rates. Transportation Research Record 1518:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferdman A (2005) Modelling Joint Development of Land Use and Light Rail Transit Stations: The Case of Tel Aviv. MSc Thesis, Haifa: Technion — Israel Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Frank LD, Pivo G (1994) Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, Walking. Transportation Research Record 1466:44–52Google Scholar
  20. Giuliano G (1995) Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and Transit. In: Hanson S (ed) The Geography of Urban Transportation, Guilford Press, New York, pp 305–341Google Scholar
  21. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1997) Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? Journal of the American Planning Association 63:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hess DB (2001) Effect of Free Parking on Commuter Mode Choice. Transportation Research 1735:35–42Google Scholar
  23. Kenworthy JR, Laube FB (1999a) An International Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities 1969–1990. University Press of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  24. Kenworthy JR, Laube FB (1999b) Patterns of Automobile Dependence in Cities: An International Overview of Key Physical and Economic Dimensions with Some Implications for Urban Policy. Transportation Research Part A 33:691–723Google Scholar
  25. Kumar A, Levinson D (1995) Chained Trips in Montgomery County, Maryland. ITE Journal 65/5:27–32Google Scholar
  26. Miller EJ, Ibrahim A (1998) Urban Form and Vehicular Travel, Some Empirical Findings. Transportation Research Record 1617:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NTA (2001) Technical Memo No. 8, Trip Generation Models. Tel Aviv Metropolitan Mass Transit System: Travel Demand Forecasting Model (MIP), Tel AvivGoogle Scholar
  28. Ortuzar J de Dios, Willumsen LG (1990) Modelling Transport. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (1996a) Transit and Urban Form, Transit, Urban Form and the Building Environment: A Summary of Knowledge. TCRP Report 16, Vol. 1, Part I, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Sullivan S, Morall J (1996) Walking Distances to and from Light Rail Transit Stations. Transportation Research Record 1538:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (1996b) Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection. TCRP Report 16, Vol. 1, Part II, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Pushkarev B, Zupan JM (1977) Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodenburg CA (2005) Measuring Benefits of Multifunctional Land Use. Ph.D. Thesis in the Department of Spatial Economics, The Free University, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Schimek P (1996) Household Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: How Much Does Residential Density Matter? Transportation Research Record 1552:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shefer D (2003 (Economic Aspects of Multifunctional Land Use and Urban Regeneration. In: Nijkamp P, Rodenburg CA, Vreeker R (eds) The Economics of Multifunctional Land Use. Shaker Publishing, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  36. Shefer D, Degani R (1998) Gender Differences in Travel-to-Work Patterns after a Move to the Suburbs: An Israeli Case Study. European Spatial Research and Policy 5:67–80Google Scholar
  37. Stringham M (1982) Travel Behaviour Associated with Land Use Adjacent to Rapid Transit Stations. ITE Journal 52/4:18–22Google Scholar
  38. Sun X, Wilmot CG, Kasturi T (1998) Household Travel, Household Characteristics and Land Use: An Empirical Study from the 1994 Portland Activity-Based Travel Survey. Transportation Research Record 1617:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Untermann RK (1984) Characteristics of Walking. In: Accommodating the Pedestrian, Adapting Towns and Neighbourhoods for Walking and Bicycling, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 23–59Google Scholar
  40. Wegener M, Fürst F (1999) Land Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 46. Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  41. Zahavi Y (1979) The UMOT Project. Report DOT-RSPA-DPB-20-79-3, US Department of Transportation/Ministry of Transport, Federal Republic of Germany, Washington, DC/BonnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Avigail Ferdman
    • 1
  • Daniel Shefer
    • 1
  • Shlomo Bekhor
    • 2
  1. 1.Technion Israel Institute of TechnologyCenter for Urban and Regional StudiesHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Technion Israel Institute of TechnologyTransportation Research InstituteHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations