IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v45y2018i5d10.1007_s11116-017-9760-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the impact of walk–bike infrastructure, safety perception, and built-environment on active transportation mode choice: a random parameter model using New York City commuter data

Author

Listed:
  • H. M. Abdul Aziz

    (Urban Dynamics Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

  • Nicholas N. Nagle

    (Urban Dynamics Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    University of Tennessee)

  • April M. Morton

    (Urban Dynamics Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

  • Michael R. Hilliard

    (Urban Dynamics Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

  • Devin A. White

    (Urban Dynamics Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

  • Robert N. Stewart

    (Urban Dynamics Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Abstract

This study estimates a random parameter (mixed) logit model for active transportation (walk and bicycle) choices for work trips in the New York City (using 2010–2011 Regional Household Travel Survey Data). We explored the effects of traffic safety, walk–bike network facilities, and land use attributes on walk and bicycle mode choice decision in the New York City for home-to-work commute. Applying the flexible econometric structure of random parameter models, we capture the heterogeneity in the decision making process and simulate scenarios considering improvement in walk–bike infrastructure such as sidewalk width and length of bike lane. Our results indicate that increasing sidewalk width, total length of bike lane, and proportion of protected bike lane will increase the likelihood of more people taking active transportation mode This suggests that the local authorities and planning agencies to invest more on building and maintaining the infrastructure for pedestrians. Further, improvement in traffic safety by reducing traffic crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, will increase the likelihood of taking active transportation modes. Our results also show positive correlation between number of non-motorized trips by the other family members and the likelihood to choose active transportation mode. The model would be an essential tool to estimate the impact of improving traffic safety and walk–bike infrastructure which will assist in investment decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • H. M. Abdul Aziz & Nicholas N. Nagle & April M. Morton & Michael R. Hilliard & Devin A. White & Robert N. Stewart, 2018. "Exploring the impact of walk–bike infrastructure, safety perception, and built-environment on active transportation mode choice: a random parameter model using New York City commuter data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1207-1229, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:45:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9760-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-017-9760-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-017-9760-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-017-9760-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salon, Deborah, 2009. "Neighborhoods, cars, and commuting in New York City: A discrete choice approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 180-196, February.
    2. Wardman, Mark & Tight, Miles & Page, Matthew, 2007. "Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 339-350, May.
    3. Khan, Mobashwir & M. Kockelman, Kara & Xiong, Xiaoxia, 2014. "Models for anticipating non-motorized travel choices, and the role of the built environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 117-126.
    4. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M. & Greene, William H., 2008. "Combining RP and SP data: biases in using the nested logit ‘trick’ – contrasts with flexible mixed logit incorporating panel and scale effects," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 126-133.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    7. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    8. Iacono, Michael & Krizek, Kevin J. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2010. "Measuring non-motorized accessibility: issues, alternatives, and execution," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 133-140.
    9. Cao, Xinyu, 2006. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt07q5p340, University of California Transportation Center.
    10. Chinh Ho & Corinne Mulley, 2015. "Intra-household interactions in transport research: a review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 33-55, January.
    11. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    12. Millward, Hugh & Spinney, Jamie & Scott, Darren, 2013. "Active-transport walking behavior: destinations, durations, distances," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 101-110.
    13. Schneider, Robert J., 2013. "Theory of routine mode choice decisions: An operational framework to increase sustainable transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-137.
    14. Arlie Adkins & Jennifer Dill & Gretchen Luhr & Margaret Neal, 2012. "Unpacking Walkability: Testing the Influence of Urban Design Features on Perceptions of Walking Environment Attractiveness," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 499-510.
    15. Liu, Chengxi & Susilo, Yusak O. & Karlström, Anders, 2014. "Examining the impact of weather variability on non-commuters’ daily activity–travel patterns in different regions of Sweden," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 36-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shilpa Dogra & Nicholas O’Rourke & Michael Jenkins & Daniel Hoornweg, 2021. "Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Yuanyuan Guo & Linchuan Yang & Wenke Huang & Yi Guo, 2020. "Traffic Safety Perception, Attitude, and Feeder Mode Choice of Metro Commute: Evidence from Shenzhen," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Gan, Zuoxian & Yang, Min & Zeng, Qingcheng & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2021. "Associations between built environment, perceived walkability/bikeability and metro transfer patterns," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 171-187.
    4. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz & Páez, Antonio, 2021. "Built for active travel? Investigating the contextual effects of the built environment on transportation mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Karina Hermawan & Diem-Trinh Le, 2022. "Examining Factors Influencing the Use of Shared Electric Scooters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Yang, Binyu & Tian, Yuan & Wang, Jian & Hu, Xiaowei & An, Shi, 2022. "How to improve urban transportation planning in big data era? A practice in the study of traffic analysis zone delineation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    7. Zhang, Xiang & Li, Wence, 2023. "Effects of a bike sharing system and COVID-19 on low-carbon traffic modal shift and emission reduction," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 42-64.
    8. Liu, Jixiang & Wang, Bo & Xiao, Longzhu, 2021. "Non-linear associations between built environment and active travel for working and shopping: An extreme gradient boosting approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    9. Jurgis Zagorskas & Marija Burinskienė, 2019. "Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Yi-Wen Kuo & Cheng-Hsien Hsieh & Yu-Chen Hung, 2021. "Non-linear characteristics in switching intention to use a docked bike-sharing system," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1459-1479, June.
    11. Justin B Hollander & Giorgi Nikolaishvili & Alphonsus A Adu-Bredu & Minyu Situ & Shabnam Bista, 2021. "Using deep learning to examine the correlation between transportation planning and perceived safety of the built environment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(7), pages 2023-2038, September.
    12. Yi-Wen Kuo & Cheng-Hsien Hsieh & Yu-Chen Hung, 0. "Non-linear characteristics in switching intention to use a docked bike-sharing system," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Zhu, Dianchen & Sze, N.N. & Feng, Zhongxiang & Chan, Ho-Yin, 2023. "Waiting for signalized crossing or walking to footbridge/underpass? Examining the effect of weather using stated choice experiment with panel mixed random regret minimization approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 144-169.
    4. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    5. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    7. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    8. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    9. Campbell, Danny & Sinclair, Victoria, 2008. "Mapping preferences for the restoration of environmental damage caused by illegal dumping," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36772, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0607, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    13. Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guevara, Cristian Angelo, 2012. "A Monte Carlo experiment to analyze the curse of dimensionality in estimating random coefficients models with a full variance–covariance matrix," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 321-332.
    14. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Birolini, Sebastian & Malighetti, Paolo & Redondi, Renato & Deforza, Paolo, 2019. "Access mode choice to low-cost airports: Evaluation of new direct rail services at Milan-Bergamo airport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 113-124.
    16. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Integrating landscape improvement indices and discrete choice experiments: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0609, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    17. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    18. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    19. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:45:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9760-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.