Uses of National Household Travel Survey Data in - NHTS Home ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy and Mobility An Economic Evaluation of Health-Promotive Built Environment Changes Authors: Guo, Jessica Y; Gandavarapu, Sasanka Preventive Medicine Issue: Supplement 1 1/1/2010 Abstract: This study aimed to help public investment decisionmakers see the greatest return on their built environment investments by developing an analysis framework for identifying the most promising improvement strategies and assessing the attainable return on investment. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey sample (N = 4974) from Dane County, Wisconsin, was used to develop a Spatial Seemingly Unrelated Regression model of daily vehicle miles traveled and miles walked or biked. The empirical model was used to analyze the travel impacts of hypothetical built environment changes. These travel impacts were translated into health impacts and monetary values using cost-benefit analysis. Two win-win built environment strategies were found: increased regional retail accessibility and increased prevalence of sidewalks. Based on the present analyses, an investment of $450 million to make sidewalks available to all Dane County residents was estimated to yield a cost-benefit ratio of 1.87 over a 10-year life cycle. Certain built environment measures could be predicted to be effective strategies for exerting a positive influence on people‟s travel behavior and the health of the community. Quantifiable public health benefits gained by better air quality and increased physical activity were shown to outweigh the cost of implementing the built environment measure of adding sidewalks to all roads. Subject areas and Index Terms Highways; Planning and Forecasting; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning Activity choices; Automobile travel; Benefit cost analysis; Bicycling; Capital investments; Mode choice; Public health; Sidewalks; Strategic planning; Travel behavior; Travel surveys; Walking; Dane County (Wisconsin); Transportation infrastructure Availability: Find a library where document is available Order URL: http://worldcat.org/issn/00917435 16
Policy and Mobility Peak Travel in America Authors: McGuckin, Nancy; Contrino, Heather; Nakamoto, Hikari Transportation Research Board - 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 TRB 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting 2010 Abstract: Understanding peak period travel is vital for transportation finance initiatives, congestion mitigation, and air quality policies among other important policy and planning programs. Historically, the peak period was considered the domain of work travel. Commuting is still predominantly a weekday activity, tied to the morning and evening hours, and has traditionally defined peak travel demand. Over the last four decades the number of work trips grew as the population of workers grew. But by the early 80‟s the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) showed that the number of non-work trips were growing faster than work trips. By the early 90‟s the concept of trip chaining during a work tour was commonly used to allow more complex commutes to be recognized as work travel by including stops for incidental purposes during the commute. Even beyond the growth in trip chaining, non-work travel continues to grow faster than work travel, and it is growing during the peak periods. As the authors look forward to initiatives that aspire to smooth travel demand across time periods, one question that is difficult to answer is „How much of peak period travel is really mandatory?‟ This research utilizes the NHTS data chained trip files (2001 are the most recent available, but this analysis can be updated in late fall with the 2008 NHTS) to categorize peak weekday vehicle travel into Mandatory travel; including work and school trips with typically more rigid schedules and fixed destinations; and Flexible travel; such as getting a meal and going to the gym that may be less rigid in time or destination choice. The concept of a work tour is used to include incidental non-work stops into the commute and therefore the „Mandatory‟ category. The trips classified as „Flexible‟ are trips wholly separate from the commute tour. This research concludes that using very stringent definitions of Mandatory travel (for instance, not including trips for medical purposes) nearly 75 percent of am peak vehicle trips are for „Mandatory‟ purposes. In contrast, only 34 percent of PM peak vehicle trips are „Mandatory‟. Importantly, we find that the mean income of peak travelers is slightly lower than the average for all travelers. Workers with the least flexible schedules, such as people in sales and service occupations, are more likely to be commuting during the peak. Part-time workers and workers in households with children are more likely to make „Flexible‟ trips during the peak, and many (38 percent) of the workers making Flexible trips during peak go to work at another time, indicating schedule constraints on their Flexible travel. Subject areas and Index Terms Highways; Planning and Forecasting; Public Transportation; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning Congestion management systems; Flexibility; Peak periods; Systems analysis; Travel surveys; Travel time; Vacations; Work trips; United States; Destinations; Household travel surveys Availability: Transportation Research Board Business Office 17
Page 1 and 2: Uses of National Household Travel S
Page 3 and 4: Publications (from April 2006 to Ma
Page 5 and 6: Publications (from April 2006 to Ma
Page 7 and 8: Bike and Pedestrian Studies Extent
Page 9 and 10: Bike and Pedestrian Studies Modelin
Page 11 and 12: Demographic Trends Demographics Mat
Page 13 and 14: Energy Consumption Estimating Trans
Page 15 and 16: Energy Consumption Vehicle Capacity
Page 17 and 18: Energy Consumption Promoting the Ma
Page 19 and 20: Energy Consumption National Househo
Page 21: Environment Statistical Evidence of
Page 25 and 26: Policy and Mobility Similarities an
Page 27 and 28: Policy and Mobility To What Extent
Page 29 and 30: Policy and Mobility Impact of State
Page 31 and 32: Special Population Groups National
Page 33 and 34: Special Population Groups Trip Chai
Page 35 and 36: Special Population Groups Older Dri
Page 37 and 38: Special Population Groups Travel Be
Page 39 and 40: Special Population Groups New York
Page 41 and 42: Special Population Groups Active Ad
Page 47 and 48: Survey, Data Synthesis, and Other A
Page 63 and 64: Traffic Safety Passenger Age and Ge
Page 65 and 66: Traffic Safety An Interactive Tool
Page 67 and 68: Traffic Safety Measuring Injury Ris
Page 69 and 70: Traffic Safety Evaluation of Fatali
Page 71 and 72: Traffic Safety Using the U.S. Natio
Page 73 and 74:
Traffic Safety Crash Types: Markers
Page 75 and 76:
Transit Planning Public Transit in
Page 77 and 78:
Transit Planning Relationship Betwe
Page 79 and 80:
Transit Planning Examining the Role
Page 81 and 82:
Travel Behavior Multivariate analys
Page 83 and 84:
Travel Behavior A discrete-continuo
Page 85 and 86:
Travel Behavior National Household
Page 87 and 88:
Travel Behavior Commute Travel: How
Page 89 and 90:
Travel Behavior National Transport
Page 91 and 92:
Travel Behavior Time-of-Day Choice
Page 93 and 94:
Travel Behavior Comparison of Vehic
Page 95 and 96:
Travel Behavior Multinomial Modelin
Page 97 and 98:
Travel Behavior Vehicle Ownership a
Page 99 and 100:
Travel Behavior Transferability of
Page 101 and 102:
Travel Behavior Effect of Variation
Page 103 and 104:
Travel Behavior A Comparative Analy
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Travel Behavior Changes in the U.S.
show all

Uses of National Household Travel Survey Data in - NHTS Home ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?