Vehicle kilometers traveled reduction impacts of Transit-Oriented Development: Evidence from Shanghai City

Chen, Wu, Chen, and Wang, 2017, in Transportation Research Part D

doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.006
Location Shanghai, China
Population General
Sample size 2038
Factor analysis type exploratory factor analysis, unknown rotation
Stepwise regression no
Removal of insignificant variables yes
Reviewed by MWC

Abstract

The role of residential self-selection has become a major subject in the debate over the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior. Numerous previous empirical studies on this subject have provided valuable insights into the associations between the built environment and travel behavior. However, the vast majority of the studies were conducted in North American and European cities; yet this research is still in its infancy in most developing countries, including China, where residential and transport choices are likely to be more constrained and travel-related attitudes quite different from those in the developed world. Using the data collected from 2038 residents currently living in TOD neighborhoods and non-TOD neighborhoods in Shanghai City, this paper aims to partly fill the gaps by investigating the causal relationship between the built environment and travel behavior in the Chinese context. More specifically, this paper employs Heckman’s sample selection model to examine the reduction impacts of TOD on personal vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT), controlling for self-selection. The results show that whilst the effects of residential self-selection are apparent; the built environment exhibits the most significant impacts on travel behavior, playing the dominant role. These findings produce a sound basis for local policymakers to better understand the nature and magnitude toward the impacts of the built environment on travel behavior. Providing the government department with reassurance that effective interventions and policies on land use aimed toward altering the built environment would actually lead to meaningful changes in travel behavior.

Factors

Models

Dependent variable Daily personal vehicle kilometers traveled
Model type Heckman sample selection model
Sample size 2038.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Selection (probability of living in non-TOD area, binary logit)
Variable Coefficient p-value
Intercept 1.938 0
Age 0.01 0.028
Education -0.095 0
Renter -0.103 0.047
Household size 0.274 0
Log of household annual income 0.197 0
Number of children under 18 in the household 0.062 0
Pro alternatives -0.134 0.003
Pro transit -0.167 0
Pro car 0.112 0.078
Travel dislike -0.025 0.147
Pro-environmental solutions -0.087 0.231
Safety aware 0.174 0.104
Travel accessibility -0.102 0
Facilities accessibility -0.159 0.033
Attractiveness 0.035 0.121
Socializing -0.102 0.002
Outdoor spaciousness 0.063 0.056
Safety 0.203 0.34
VKT in TOD areas
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant 24.874 0.026
Female -3.051 0.048
Renter -1.225 0.02
1 worker household 1.787 0.062
2 worker household 3.928 0.052
3 or more worker household 4.794 0
Employer financial assistance with transit costs -1.801 0.049
Log of household annual income 0.307 0.5
Residential density (population/km²) -1.335 0.044
Land use mix -11.655 0.051
Road network density (km/km²) -0.232 0.038
Opportunities to local establishments -0.094 0.075
Proximity to city sub-center (km) -0.224 0.015
Pro alternatives -5.264 0.013
Pro transit -9.317 0.045
Pro car 15.037 0.005
Travel dislike -3.16 0.038
Pro-environmental solutions -1.886 0.859
Safety aware 0.805 0.321
Selectivity correction factor -0.035 0
VKT in non-TOD areas
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant 12.446 0.095
Female -2.062 0.003
Renter -0.152 0.202
1 worker household 2.493 0.021
2 worker household 5.272 0
3 or more worker household 5.839 0
Employer financial assistance with transit costs -1.508 0.041
Log of household annual income 0.72 0.526
Residential density (population/km²) -1.0 0.459
Land use mix -8.516 0.031
Road network density (km/km²) -0.189 0.209
Opportunities to local establishments -0.293 0.001
Proximity to city sub-center (km) -0.007 0.966
Pro alternatives -2.427 0.879
Pro transit -13.475 0.005
Pro car 18.143 0
Travel dislike -9.122 0.05
Pro-environmental solutions -2.427 0.879
Safety aware 0.954 0.534
Selectivity correction factor -0.012 0.004
Dependent variable Daily personal vehicle kilometers traveled
Model type Heckman sample selection model
Sample size 2038.0
R2 .135 (TOD areas); .149 (non-TOD areas)
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Selection (probability of living in non-TOD area, binary logit)
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Intercept 1.938 0.0
Age 0.01 0.721
Education -0.095 0.0
Renter -0.103 0.029
Household size 0.274 0.0
Log of household annual income 0.197 0.0
Number of children under 18 in the household 0.062 0.0
Pro alternatives -0.134 0.0
Pro transit -0.167 0.0
Pro car 0.112 0.151
Travel dislike -0.025 0.865
Pro-environmental solutions -0.087 0.706
Safety aware 0.174 0.094
Travel accessibility -0.102 0.0
Facilities accessibility -0.159 0.0
Attractiveness 0.035 0.772
Socializing -0.102 0.0
Outdoor spaciousness 0.063 0.261
Safety 0.203 0.551
VKT in TOD areas
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Constant 35.258 0.0
Female -2.329 0.0
Renter 0.22 0.0
1 worker household 1.696 0.0
2 worker household 3.875 0.0
3 or more worker household 4.55 0.0
Employer financial assistance with transit costs -1.696 0.0
Log of household annual income 0.338 0.457
Number of motor vehicles available in the household 12.305 0.0
Residential density (population/km²) -0.158 0.766
Land use mix -7.042 0.0
Road network density (km/km²) -0.007 0.994
Opportunities to local establishments -0.32 0.0
Proximity to city sub-center (km) -0.109 0.819
Pro alternatives -6.808 0.0
Pro transit -11.769 0.0
Pro car 10.888 0.0
Travel dislike -3.203 0.0
Pro-environmental solutions -1.989 0.0
Safety aware 1.704 0.051
Selectivity correction factor -0.046 0.0
VKT in non-TOD areas
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
Constant 26.621 0.0
Female -1.485 0.0
Renter -0.223 0.0
1 worker household 2.902 0.0
2 worker household 5.088 0.0
3 or more worker household 5.386 0.0
Employer financial assistance with transit costs -1.517 0.0
Log of household annual income 2.777 0.0
Number of motor vehicles available in the household 14.004 0.0
Residential density (population/km²) -1.012 0.0
Land use mix -9.843 0.0
Road network density (km/km²) -0.001 0.999
Opportunities to local establishments -0.275 0.0
Proximity to city sub-center (km) -0.57 0.0
Pro alternatives -2.42 0.006
Pro transit 12.399 0.0
Pro car 15.849 0.0
Travel dislike -12.66 0.0
Pro-environmental solutions -0.454 0.552
Safety aware 1.207 0.198
Selectivity correction factor -0.027 0.427

The Attitudes and Travel Database is produced with support from the Center for Teaching Old Models New Tricks at Arizona State University, a University Transportation Center sponsored by the US Department of Transportation through Grant No. 69A3551747116.

sha256:a08d9e369743bf7e6d1c40d27347318209b40a7fb1543813fdcf31b898918815