may be undertaken in an effort to promote living in CNs and to encourage more transit use and walking, as suggested by the research findings from this study. Practical implications of this research all derive from three component strategies that involve encouraging individuals to move to a CN and en- couraging them to increase their use of transit and walking instead of driving. These component strategies are as follows: • Encourage policies that lead to the creation of an urban form that is highly conducive to transit use and walking. Attributes of CNs include ease of walking to stores, restau- rants, and other activities; easy access to public transporta- tion; ability to have fewer automobiles in the household; and opportunity to interact with neighbors. Work through employers and community policymakers to provide incen- tives for transit use.
• Provide a set of services that complement and support using public transportation, particularly for the market segments with the most potential to increase transit use. These include providing real-time information about
transit arrival/departure times, as well as other services that make people feel safer and more confident about using transit.
• Educate and market the use of public transportation to the public, focusing first on segments of the population that are known to be more receptive. Focus marketing and policies on increasing the status of transit and making it simpler to use.
There are many challenges to accomplishing the desirable practical outcomes discussed in the Summary of this report. It is also clear that additional research will be needed to more fully understand the factors that link attitudes and values with the outcome behaviors. The positive market sectors identified
in this research represented 30% to 45% of the sample, and the practical strategies noted above should target these seg- ments first. The promotional messages directed to these indi- viduals will need to be tailored to their needs and matched with their attitudes and values. No one approach is, however, likely to be highly successful on its own; rather, a variety of approaches must be applied simultaneously, including creat- ing a conducive urban form, providing supportive public services, and coordinating the services with targeted market- ing and promotion. In addition, a suite of incentives and disincentives should be added, resulting in structural, social, and economic forces that may be expected to have a reason- able chance of changing human behavior in ways favorable to use of public transportation and walking.
housing in a CN and
A ugment transit support strategies (e.g., fare cards and real - time information) w ith education to show how
the strategies impro ve outcomes
Focus marketing on indiv idual life change
ev ents
Seek to create high status image for public
transportation
Target marketing to show how easy tran sit
is to use Target most receptiv e
market segments wi th a suite of transit serv ices and marketing messages
tailored to their need s Ensure affordable
housing in a CN and easy access to transit
Ensure that stores, restaurants and other activities are in walking
distance to CNs.
A ugment transit support strategies (e.g., fare cards and real - time information) w ith education to show how
the strategies impro ve outcomes
Focus marketing on indiv idual life-change
ev ents
Seek to create high status image for public
transportation
Target marketing to show how easy tran sit
is to use Target most receptiv e
market segments wi th a suite of transit serv ices and marketing messages
tailored to their need s
Conducive Urban Form
and Related Policies Supportive Services Marketing & Promotion Strategies to Encourage a Move to a CN and Increased Transit Use and Walking
Work through public polic y and employers to
offer incentiv es to increase transit an d
wa lk in g
1. Stanley, Robert, et al. TCRP Report 97: Emerging New Paradigms. A Guide to Fundamental Change in Local Public Transportation Orga- nizations. Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies, Washington DC, 2003.
2. Lucy, W., and D. Phillips. Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropolitan Renewal. Island Press, Washington DC, 2000.
3. Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press, Washington DC, 1998.
4. Myers, D., and E. Gearin. Current Preferences and Future Demand for Denser Residential Environments. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001, pp. 633–660.
5. Hobbs F., and N. Stoops. Demographic Trends in the 20th Century: Census 2000 Special Reports. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2002.
6. National Association of Realtors. Smart Growth: A Resource for Realtors—The Issues, the Economics, and the Debate. Chicago IL, 2000.
7. American Public Transit Association. Historical Ridership Trends. Washington DC. http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp/ ridetrnd.cfm. Accessed May 25, 2006.
8. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Sta- tistics 2003. Washington DC. http://www.bts.gov/publications/ national_transportation_statistics/2003/index.html.
9. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. American Housing Survey. Washington, DC, various years.
10. Coogan, M. Why Care about Walking?U.S. Department of Trans- portation, Washington, DC. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/presentations/ walking/walking.ppt. Accessed August 5, 2006.
11. Crane, R. The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000, pp. 3–23. 12. Ewing, R., and R. Cervero. Travel and the Built Environment—A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 1780,TRB: National Research Coun- cil, Washington, DC, 2001.
13. Cervero, R., C. Ferrell, and S. Murphy. Transit-Oriented Develop- ment and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review. Research Results Digest No. 52. TRB: National Research Council, Washington, DC, October 2002.
14. Handy, S. Smart Growth and the Transportation–Land Use
Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us? International
Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 146–167. 15. J. R. Kuzmyak, R. H. Pratt, and G. B. Douglas. TCRP Report 95:
Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 15—
Land Use and Site Design. TRB, National Research Council, Wash- ington, DC, 2003.
16. Frank, L., T. Schmid, J. Sallis, J. Chapman, and B. Saelens. Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured
Urban Form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, Vol.28 (2S2), 2005, pp. 117–125.
17. Kitamura, R, P. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet. A Micro-Analysis of Land Use And Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, Issue 2, 1997, pp. 125–158. 18. Bagley, M., and P. Mokhtarian. The Impact of Residential Neigh-
borhood Type on Travel Behaviour: a Structural Equations Modeling Approach. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2002, pp. 279–297.
19. Bhat, C., and J. Guo. A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environ- ment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels. Presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Paper # 06-0990, Washington DC, 2006.
20. National Association of Realtors. 1999 National Association of Realtors Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers. Chicago IL, 2000. 21. Malizia, E., and S. Exline. Consumer Preferences for Residential
Development Alternatives. Working Paper 2000-02. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Chapel Hill NC, 2000.
22. Decision Data Inc. Seattle Planning Department Residential Pref- erence Study. Seattle WA, December 1993.
23. Naess, P. Residential Location Influences Travel—But How and Why? Paper for the Traffic Days at Aalborg University, Aalborg University, Denmark, 2002.
24. Weisbrod, G., M. Ben-Akiva, and S. Lerman. Tradeoffs in Resi- dential Location Decisions: Transportation versus Other Factors.
Transportation Policy and Decision-Making,Vol. 1, No. 1, 1980. Earlier version also available at http://www.edrgroup.com/edr1/ library/lib_trans_general/index.shtml.
25. Lerman, S. Location, Housing, Automobile Ownership, and the Mode to Work: A Joint Choice Model. In Transportation Research Record 610. TRB, National Research Council, Washington DC, 1977, pp. 6–11.
26. Srour I., K. Kockelman, and T. Dunn. Accessibility Indices, Connection to Residential Land Prices and Location Choices. In
Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC, 2003, pp. 25–34.
27. Waddell, P., and F. Nourzad. Incorporating Nonmotorized Mode and Neighborhood Accessibility in an Integrated Land Use and