Www.company.com STE E RECURSOS MIDIÁTICOS ESCOLA ESTADUAL PROFESSORA CATARINA DE ABREU.
Www.company.com Student Travel: Evidence from 13 Diverse Metro Regions of the United States Guang...
-
Upload
ferdinand-king -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Www.company.com Student Travel: Evidence from 13 Diverse Metro Regions of the United States Guang...
www.company.com
Student Travel: Evidence from 13 Diverse Metro
Regions of the United States
Guang Tian and Reid Ewing
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Guang TianCity and Metropolitan Planning
University of [email protected]
Presented by:
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Introduction
2009
1969
13% 46%
48% 12%
Less and less students walk and bike to school.
Travel to school
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Why are there less and less students choosing walk or bike to school?
http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/pic_related_030415_RVBA.jpg
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
(Black et al., 2001; Bringolf-Isler et al., 2008; Emond and Handy, 2010; Ewing et al., 2004; Frank et al., 2007; Larsen et al., 2011; McDonald, 2007; Mitra and Buliung, 2012; Müller et al., 2008; Schlossberg et al., 2006; Stewart, 2011; Timperio et al., 2006; Yarlagadda and Srinivasan, 2008).
https://i.imgur.com/kPs9B2q.jpg
• Distance is reported as a primary factor that impacts children’s walking or biking to school.
Some built environments are associated with walking and biking to school.
().
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
• However, the relationship is not generally found (Ewing et al., 2004; Yarlagadda and Srinivasan, 2008; Wong et al., 2011).
• Both the positive and negative relationships between walking and biking to school and built environment are reported (Boarnet et al., 2005; Frank et al., 2007; Giles-Corti et al., 2011; Larsen et al., 2011; Marique et al., 2013; Mitra and Buliung, 2012; Panter et al., 2008; Schlossberg et al., 2006Larsen et al., 2011; Timperio et al., 2006).
The evidence of how built environment impact student’s travel-to-school choice is not consistent.
www.company.com
Research Question
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
• How do students travel to and from school?
• What is the relationship between built environment around schools and homes and student’s travel choices?
www.company.com
Research Design
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Local characteristics
- Density- Diversity- Design- Distance to transit- Destination accessibility
Traveler characteristics
- Household income- Household size- Vehicle ownership- Driver license- Gender
Mode choice- Walk- Bike- Transit- school bus - Auto
External factors- Weather- Social/culture norm- Safety - etc.
Regional characteristics
- Region Size- Compactness index- Gas price
www.company.com
Methodology
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Household Travel Surveys
Data Collection
http://www.nanaimo.ca/assets/Departments/Engineering~Public~Works/Transportation~Master~Plan/Complex%20Travel2.png
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Built environment: Other GIS layers
• Parcel level land use
• Population and employment
• Street network (buffers)
• Intersections
• Transit stops
• Travel time skims (TAZs)
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Survey Date Surveyed Households
Surveyed Trips Surveyed School Trips
Atlanta, GA 2011 9,575 93,681 7,687Boston, MA 2011 7,826 86,915 3,616Denver, CO 2010 5,551 67,764 2,559Detroit, MI 2005 939 14,690 1,501Eugene, OR 2011 1,679 16,563 905Houston, TX 2008 5,276 59,552 4,687Indianapolis, IN 2009 3,929 37,473 1,922Kansas City, MO 2004 3,022 31,779 2,595Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 2010 8,234 79,236 3,229Portland, OR 2011 4,513 47,551 3,230Sacramento, CA 2000 3,520 33,519 2,008San Antonio, TX 2007 1,563 14,952 1,443Seattle, WA 2006 3,908 40,450 4,498Total 59,535 624,125 39,880
Survey year Households Trips School trips
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Analysis method
multilevel binomial logistic regressions
Boston
…
Houston
…
…
Level 1: student
Level 2: region
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Mode share of all K-12 school trips
Results
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Walk coefficient standard
errort-ratio p-value
Constant -3.589 0.276 -12.993 <0.001Travel time -0.033 0.002 -20.546 <0.001Household income -0.003 0.0003 -7.784 <0.001Vehicles per capita -0.822 0.076 -10.787 <0.001Driver license -0.841 0.080 -10.495 <0.001female -0.196 0.032 -6.048 <0.001Transit stop density within 0.25 mile buffer
0.001 0.0003 3.557 0.001
Activity density within 0.5 mile buffer 0.013 0.002 8.094 <0.001Job-population balance within 1 mile buffer
0.361 0.074 4.876 <0.001
Intersection density within 1 mile buffer 0.004 0.0004 10.228 <0.001% of 4-way intersection within 1 mile buffer
0.003 0.001 3.321 0.001
Employment can be reached within 30 mins by auto
0.003 0.001 3.026 0.003
Employment can be reached within 30 mins by transit
0.006 0.001 4.104 <0.001
Compactness of metro area 0.018 0.003 6.890 <0.001sample size: 5017 walk trips of 39,880 tripspseudo-R2: 0.88 ( = 1 - variance of fit model / null model)
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Bike coefficient standard
errort-ratio p-value
Constant -13.515 3.267 -4.137 0.002Travel time -0.022 0.009 -2.559 0.011Vehicles per capita -1.390 0.315 -4.413 <0.001Driver license -0.501 0.181 -2.761 0.006female -0.772 0.130 -5.941 <0.001Job-population balance within 1 mile buffer
1.061 0.388 2.735 0.007
Intersection density within 1 mile buffer
0.006 0.001 4.015 <0.001
Gas price of metro area 3.133 1.124 2.786 0.018sample size: 628 bike trips of 39,880 tripspseudo-R2: 0.37 ( = 1 - variance of fit model / null model)
www.company.com
Limitations
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
o Sample of Regions (the more regions, the more powerful of the regression)
o Missing variables (weather, SRTS program etc.)
o Self-selection – attitudes and preferences
o Street network assumptions
www.company.com
Conclusions
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
o Sociodemographic characteristics have strong influences on student travel choice.
o Students travel differs from metro to metro. Students from compact metro areas have higher probability of
walking and biking to school.
There are statistically significant positive relationships between built environment (D variables) and students’ walking and biking choice.
o Built environment matters.
With the increase of D variables, the probability of students’ walking and biking increase.
With the increase of gas price, the probability of students’ biking to school increase.
www.company.comDepartment of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Thank you !
Guang TianUniversity of Utah