Multimodal travel and the poor: evidence from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey

References

• Agrawal AW, Blumenberg EA, Abel S, Pierce G and Darrah CN 2011. Getting around when you’re just getting by: the travel behavior and transportation expenditures of low-income adults, MTI Report 10-02, San Jose, CA, Mineta Transportation Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Alshalalfah B and Shalaby A 2007. Case study: relationship of walk access distance to transit with service, travel, and personal characteristics, J. Urban Plann. Dev., 133, (2), 114–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berube A, Deakin E and Raphael S 2008. Socioeconomic differences in household automobile ownership rates: implications for evacuation policy, in Risking house and home: disasters, cities, public policy, (eds. Quigley J M and Rosenthal L A), Berkeley, CA, Institute of Governmental Studies, Public Policy Press, pp. 197–222.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenberg E and Pierce G 2012. Automobile ownership and travel of the poor: evidence from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, Transp. Res. Rec., 2320, 28–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambridge Systematics 1998. Multimodal corridor and capacity analysis manual, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Research Council (US), Transportation Research Board, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Engineers, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 399.
   Google Scholar
• Cervero R 2001. Walk-and-ride: factors influencing pedestrian access to transit, J. Public Transp., 7, (3), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Clifton KJ 2004. Mobility strategies and food shopping for low-income families: a case study, J. Plann. Educ. Res., 23, 402–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton KJ and Muhs CD 2012. Capturing and representing multimodal trips in travel surveys, Transp. Res. Rec., 2285, 74–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dargay JM 2001. The effect of income on car ownership: evidence of asymmetry, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 35, 807–821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deka D 2002. Transit availability and automobile ownership: some policy implications, J. Plann. Educ. Res., 21, 285–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickens M and Neff J 2011. 2011 Public transit fact book, Washington DC, American Public Transit Association.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle DDG 2003. Only a nobody walks: the decline of pedestrian trips in the United States, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Ewing R and Cervero R 2010. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis, J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 76, (3), 265–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuliano G 2005. Low income, public transit, and mobility, J. Transp. Res. Board, 1927, 63–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golob TF 2000. A simultaneous model of household activity participation and trip chain generation, Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., 34, (5), 355–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grotenhuis JW, Wiegmans BW and Rietveld P 2007. The desired quality of integrated multimodal travel information in public transport: customer needs for time and effort savings, Transp. Policy, 14, (1), 27–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy SL 1996. Understanding the link between urban form and non-work travel behavior, J. Plann. Educ. Res. 15, 183–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson S and Hanson P 1981. The travel-activity patterns of urban residents: dimensions and relationships to sociodemographic characteristics, Econ. Geogr., 57, (4), 332–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn-Lanser S, van Nes R and Hoogendoorn SP 2006. Modeling transfers in multimodal trips: explaining correlations, Transp. Res. Rec., 1985, 144–153.
   Google Scholar
• Hsiao C, Lu J, Sterling J and Weatherford M 1997. Use of geographic information system for analysis of transit pedestrian access, Transp. Res. Rec., 1604, 50–59.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson RW and Kaminski J 2010. Older adults’ labor force participation since 1993: a decade and a half of growth, Fact Sheet on Retirement Policy, Urban Institute, Washington DC, Available: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412011_older_adults_labor_force.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Keijer MJN and Rietveld P 2000. How do people get to the railway station? The Dutch experience, Transp. Plann. Technol., 23, (3), 215–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Ulfarsson GF and Hennessy T 2007. Analysis of light rail rider travel behavior: impacts of individual, built environment, and crime characteristics on transit access, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 41, (6), 511–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krygsman S and Dijst M 2001. Multimodal trips in the Netherlands: microlevel individual attributes and residential context, Transp. Res. Rec., 1753, 11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhnimhof T, Chlond B and von der Ruhren S 2006. Users of transport modes and multimodal travel behavior: steps toward understanding travelers’ options and choices, J. Transp. Res. Board, 1985, 40–48.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhnimhof T and Gringmuth C 2009. Multiday multiagent model of travel behavior with activity scheduling, J. Transp. Res. Board, 2134, 178–185.
   Google Scholar
• Kwan MP 2000. Gender differences in space-time constraints, Area, 32, (2), 145–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson HS and Brown-West O 1984. Estimating bus ridership, Transp. Res. Rec., 994, 8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Loutzenheiser DR 1997. Pedestrian access to transit: model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around Bay Area rapid transit stations, Transp. Res. Rec., 1604, 40–49.
   Google Scholar
• Lu X and Pas EI 1999. Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 33, (1), 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuckin N and Murakami E 1999. Examining trip-chaining behavior: a comparison of travel by men and women, Transp. Res. Rec., 1693, 79–85.
   Google Scholar
• Murakami E and Young J 1997. Daily travel by persons with low income, Paper submitted for the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Symposium, Bethesda, MD, October 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Murray AT, Davism R, Stimson RJ and Ferreira L 1998. Public transportation access, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 3, (5), 319–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nobis C 2007. Multimodality: facets and causes of sustainable mobility behavior, Transp. Res. Rec., 2010, 35–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passero WD 1996. Spending patterns of families receiving public assistance, Mon. Labor Rev., 119, 21–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucher J and Renne JL 2003. Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS, Transp. Q., 57, (3), 49–77.
   Google Scholar
• Rice L 2004. Transportation spending by low-income California households: lessons for the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco, CA, Public Policy Institute of California.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbloom S 2006. Understanding women's and men's travel patterns: the research challenge, in Research on women's issues in transportation, 1, Washington DC, Transportation Research Board.
   Google Scholar
• US Census Bureau. 2006–2008. American Community Survey. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• van Nes R 2002. Design of multimodal transport networks: a hierarchical approach, Netherlands, Delft University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Nes R and Bovy PHL 2004. Multimodal traveling and its impact on urban transit network design, J. Adv. Transp., 38, 225–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen CH and Koppelman FS 2000. A conceptual and methodological framework for the generation of activity-travel patterns, Transportation, 27, (1), 5–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao F, Chow L, Li M, Ubaka I and Gan A 2003. Forecasting transit walk accessibility: regression model alternative to buffer method, Transp. Res. Rec., 1835, 34–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar