IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt0ct7c30p.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Sungjin

Abstract

The major purpose of this research is to test the effects of street-level urban design attributes on travel behavior. There are two goals: (1) operationalizing path walkability, which includes developing a walkability measurement instrument and quantifying path walkability, and (2) testing the effect of path walkability on transit users’ access mode choice and walking distance to the station. A case study was conducted in the station area of Mountain View, California. In 2005, three different surveys were done. A station user survey was conducted by distributing self-administered, mail-back questionnaires to the entering transit users at the gates of the station. The user survey collected access mode choices, trip origins, and socio-economic data from 249 transit users who provided their routes. A walker perception survey was conducted with 68 transit users who walked to the station. This on-board survey asked them to score their walking routes. Based on the routes identified by both surveys, this research selected 270 street segments. For each segment, 30 street elements were measured by using a two-page survey instrument. The surveyed street data produced more than 40 path walkability indicators. The first part of this dissertation conducted a factor analysis with the path walkability indicators derived from the 249 surveyed routes, and found four path walkability factors: “sidewalk amenities,” “traffic impacts,” “street scale and enclosure,” and “landscaping elements.” With the four factor scores as new variables, a pair of logit analyses was conducted. All four path walkability variables significantly influence transit users’ mode choice decision – good walkability increases the transit users’ chance of walking over driving to the station. The second part created a composite walkability index based on the walker perception survey result. The walkability index was also tested in mode choice models, which confirmed that good path walkability increases the chance of walking. The third part conducted a regression analysis of transit users’ walking distance, and found that a traveler’s walking distance increased by more than 300 feet for every 0.5 increase in the composite walkability score. This research also found a donut-shaped critical walking zone, where walkability mattered more.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Sungjin, 2008. "Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0ct7c30p, University of California Transportation Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt0ct7c30p
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0ct7c30p.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt3t62h1fv is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Saelens, B.E. & Sallis, J.F. & Black, J.B. & Chen, D., 2003. "Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1552-1558.
    3. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt07k76097 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt6pv1x9xq is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt7gs0p1nc is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Seung-Nam Kim & Juwon Chung & Junseung Lee, 2022. "Exploring the Role of Transit Ridership as a Proxy for Regional Centrality in Moderating the Relationship between the 3Ds and Street-Level Pedestrian Volume: Evidence from Seoul, Korea," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Xuan Zhang & Lan Mu, 2020. "The perceived importance and objective measurement of walkability in the built environment rating," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(9), pages 1655-1671, November.
    3. Elizabeth Macdonald & Nicola Szibbo & William Eisenstein & Louise Mozingo, 2018. "Quality-of-service: toward a standardized rating tool for pedestrian quality of urban streets," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-93, January.
    4. Ana Margarita Larranaga & Julián Arellana & Luis Ignacio Rizzi & Orlando Strambi & Helena Beatriz Bettella Cybis, 2019. "Using best–worst scaling to identify barriers to walkability: a study of Porto Alegre, Brazil," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2347-2379, December.
    5. Choobchian, Pooria & Mohammadi, Ali & Zou, Bo & Hair, Joseph F. & Valinejad, Mahsa & Shin, Jaeyong & Sriraj, P.S., 2024. "Calibrating walkability indicators for commute walk trips: A structural equation modeling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Tilahun, Nebiyou & Thakuriah, Piyushimita (Vonu) & Li, Moyin & Keita, Yaye, 2016. "Transit use and the work commute: Analyzing the role of last mile issues," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 359-368.

    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. Anura Amarasinghe & Gerard D'Souza & Cheryl Brown & Tatiana Borisova, 2006. "A Spatial Analysis of Obesity in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2006-13, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    2. Spielman, Seth E. & Yoo, Eun-hye, 2009. "The spatial dimensions of neighborhood effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1098-1105, March.
    3. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    4. Mi Namgung & B. Elizabeth Mercado Gonzalez & Seungwoo Park, 2019. "The Role of Built Environment on Health of Older Adults in Korea: Obesity and Gender Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Courtney Coughenour & Hanns de la Fuente-Mella & Alexander Paz, 2019. "Analysis of Self-Reported Walking for Transit in a Sprawling Urban Metropolitan Area in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Eric T. H. Chan & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2021. "The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: evidence from a rapidly developing city in China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 431-454, February.
    7. McNeill, Lorna Haughton & Kreuter, Matthew W. & Subramanian, S.V., 2006. "Social Environment and Physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1011-1022, August.
    8. Fernando Fonseca & Escolástica Fernandes & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Walkable Cities: Using the Smart Pedestrian Net Method for Evaluating a Pedestrian Network in Guimarães, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    9. repec:rri:wpaper:200613 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jiaying Zhao & Yang Chen & Jiaping Liu & Pierluigi Salvadeo, 2025. "Towards Well-Being in Old Residential Areas: How Health-Promoting Environments Influence Resident Sentiment Within the 15-Minute Living Circle," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-32, October.
    11. Kent, Jennifer L. & Mulley, Corinne & Stevens, Nick, 2020. "Challenging policies that prohibit public transport use: Travelling with pets as a case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 86-94.
    12. Victor O. Akande & Robert A.C. Ruiter & Stef P.J. Kremers, 2019. "Environmental and Motivational Determinants of Physical Activity among Canadian Inuit in the Arctic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Letizia Appolloni & Maria Vittoria Corazza & Daniela D’Alessandro, 2019. "The Pleasure of Walking: An Innovative Methodology to Assess Appropriate Walkable Performance in Urban Areas to Support Transport Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Jun-Hyun Kim & Chanam Lee & Wonmin Sohn, 2016. "Urban Natural Environments, Obesity, and Health-Related Quality of Life among Hispanic Children Living in Inner-City Neighborhoods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Razieh Zandieh & Javier Martinez & Johannes Flacke & Phil Jones & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2016. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking: Inequalities in Neighbourhood Safety, Pedestrian Infrastructure and Aesthetics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, November.
    16. Guillem Artigues & Sara Mateo & Maria Ramos & Elena Cabeza, 2020. "Validation of the Urban Walkability Perception Questionnaire (UWPQ) in the Balearic Islands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Zimu Jia & Long Chen & Jingjia Chen & Guowei Lyu & Ding Zhou & Ying Long, 2020. "Urban modeling for streets using vector cellular automata: Framework and its application in Beijing," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1418-1439, October.
    18. Mouhcine Guettabi & Abdul Munasib, 2014. "Urban Sprawl, Obesogenic Environment, And Child Weight," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 378-401, June.
    19. Neatt, Kevin & Millward, Hugh & Spinney, Jamie, 2017. "Neighborhood walking densities: A multivariate analysis in Halifax, Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 9-16.
    20. Deepti Adlakha & J. Aaron Hipp & James F. Sallis & Ross C. Brownson, 2018. "Exploring Neighborhood Environments and Active Commuting in Chennai, India," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, August.
    21. Lin Lin & Xueming (Jimmy) Chen & Anne Vernez Moudon, 2021. "Measuring the Urban Forms of Shanghai’s City Center and Its New Districts: A Neighborhood-Level Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:uctcwp:qt0ct7c30p. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    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.