Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 192

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 191
RESOURCES 1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2003. User Benefit Analysis for Highways. Washington, DC: AASHTO. This publication is a replacement for the 1977 AASHTO "Redbook" that provided guidance in estimating the user effects of highway and transit projects. The new book focuses on highways and provides the latest thinking on user effects. It is presented in an easy-to-access format. 2) Beinborn, Edward A. 1995. A Transportation Modeling Primer. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Center for Urban Transportation Studies. Available at This Web document is an excellent overview of the traditional four-step transportation modeling process. It presents technical considerations in an easy-to-understand manner. 3) Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 1997. "Mobility, Access and Transportation." Transportation Statistics Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Chapter 6, pp. 135145, and Chapter 8, pp. 173192. These chapters define and distinguish access and mobility in an historical context. There is little explanation of tools to measure "accessibility," but there is a discussion of factors that affect it. 4) Dixon, Linda. 1996. "Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems." Transportation Research Record 1538. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp. 19. This article describes LOS ratings for walking and cycling conditions to help identify ways to improve and encourage nonmotorized transportation. The ratings take into account the existence of separated facilities, conflicts, speed differential, congestion, maintenance, amenities, and TDM. These are relatively easy-to-use methods for evaluating nonmotorized roadway conditions that may be simpler to apply than other, more data-intensive methods. 5) Eash, Ronald. 1999. "Destination and Mode Choice Models for Nonmotorized Travel," Transportation Research Record 1674. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, pp. 18. This article describes the techniques used to modify the Chicago Area Transportation model so that it could evaluate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Smaller analysis zones were created, and various demographic and transportation system factors that affect nonmotorized travel behavior were incorporated into the model. This article should be useful to planners and modelers who might want to incorporate nonmotorized travel into a conventional traffic model. 6) Federal Highway Administration. 1983. Calibrating and Testing a Gravity Model for Any Size Urban Area. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Available from the National Transportation Library at 196