Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

109 1. Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition, Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2004. 2. Trip Generation, 8th edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2008. 3. Mixed Use Development Handbook, Urban Land Institute, Wash- ington, D.C., 2003, pp. 4–5. 4. Transportation Planning Handbook, 2nd edition, Institute of Trans- portation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 561–562. 5. American Public Transportation Association. “Transit Resource Guide.” Transit-Oriented Development, No. 8. 2005. www.apta.com/ research/info/briefings/briefing_8.cfm accessed August 23, 2005. 6. Steele, S.R. “Reducing Trip Generation Through Project Design,” 1991 International Conference Compendium Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1991. 7. Cervero, R. “Urban Design Issues Related to Transportation Modes, Designs and Services for Neo-Traditional Developments,” tmip.fhaw.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/udes/cervero.pdf, accessed Oct. 30, 2004. 8. “Neighborhood Vitality: Balancing Land Uses at a Community Scale—Community/Neighborhood Team Discussions,” March 4, 2004, www.sactaqc.org/resources/negotiation/community_ neighborhood/landuse_balance.htm, accessed October 30, 2004. 9. Filion, P.; McSpurren, K.; and Huether, N. “Synergy and Move- ment Within Suburban Mixed Use Centers: The Toronto Experi- ence,” Journal of Urban Affairs, Urban Affairs Association Winter 2000, p. 427; www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0735- 2166.00064/abs, accessed October 30, 2004. 10. Guttenplan, M.; Davis, B.; Steiner, R.; and Miller, D. “Planning- Level Areawide Multimodal Level-of-Service Analysis: Performance Measures for Congestion Management,” Transportation Research Record 1858, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 61–68. 11. LUTRAQ. 1000 Friends of Oregon, www.friends.org/resources/ lut_reports.html, accessed August 2005. 12. Reiff, B., and Kim, K.-H. Statistical Analysis of Urban Design Vari- ables and Their Use in Travel Demand Models, Oregon DOT, Salem, Oregon, November 2003, www.odot.state.or.us/tddtpau/ modeling.html. 13. Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. “Travel and the Built Environment,” Transportation Research Record 1780, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 108–111. 14. Kittelson & Associates. Trip Generation for New Urbanist Develop- ments, prepared for Florida DOT, August 2004, pp. 7–1. 15. Gordon, S., and Peers, J. “Designing a Community for Transporta- tion Demand Management: The Laguna West Pedestrian Pocket,” Transportation Research Record 1321, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 138–145; p. 144 cited. 16. Site Impact Handbook, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, April 1997, p. 55. 17. Districtwide Trip Generation Study, Task 5, Final Report, Walter H. Keller, Inc., Florida DOT, District IV, March 1995. 18. FDOT Trip Characteristics Study of Multi-Use Developments, Tindale Oliver & Associates, Inc., Florida DOT District IV, Ft. Lauderdale, December 1993, p. V-39. 19. “Trip Generation for Mixed-Use Developments,” Colorado/ Wyoming Section Technical Committee, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., February, 1987; pp. 27–32. 20. “The Brandermill Planned Unit Developments Traffic Generation Study, Technical Report,” JHK & Associates, Alexandria, VA, June 1984. 21. ITE trip generation survey, www.zoomerang.com/reports/public_ report.zgi?ID=L2263NJNHL4U, accessed October 31, 2004. 22. Steiner, R. “Trip Generation and Parking Requirements in Tradi- tional Shopping Districts,” Transportation Research Record 1617, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Wash- ington, D.C., 1998, pp., 28–37; p. 29 cited. 23. Sosslau, A.; A.B. Hassam; M. M. Carter; and G.V. Wickstrom. NCHRP Report 187: Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Tech- niques and Transferable Parameters: User’s Guide, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978. 24. Mehra, J., and Keller, R. Development and Application of Trip Gen- eration Rates, FHWA/PL/85/003, Federal Highway Administration, January 1985, pp. 32–36. 25. “San Diego Shared Parking Study,” JHK & Associates, San Diego, California, July 1996. 26. Hooper, K. NCHRP Report 323: Travel Characteristics at Large- Scale Suburban Activity Centers, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989. 27. Zietsman, J. “The Traffic Impact of Suburban Multi-Use Develop- ments.” Master of Engineering Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pre- toria, South Africa, September 1993. 28. Zietsman, J., and H.S. Joubert. “Quantifying the Change in Travel Patterns as a Result of Smart Growth.” Proceedings of the ITE 2002 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Philadelphia, PA, August 2002. References

29. Cervero, R. “Land Uses and Travel at Suburban Activity Centers,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 45, 1988; pp. 479–491. 30. Handy, Susan. “Travel Behavior Issues Related to Neo-Traditional Developments—A Review of the Research,” tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/ clearinghouse/docs/udes/handy.pdf, accessed October 30, 2004. 31. Steiner, Ruth. “Residential Density and Travel Patterns: Review of the Literature,” Transportation Research Record 1466, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994; pp. 37–43. 32. Ewing, Reid; Dumbaugh, Eric; and Brown, Mike. “Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses,” Transportation Research Record 1780, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp.115–120; pp. 117–118 cited. 33. Rutherford, Scott; McCormack, Edward; Wilkinson, Martina. “Travel Implications of Urban Form: Implications from an Analy- sis of Two Seattle Area Travel Diaries,” tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/ clearinghouse/docs/udes/mccormack.stm, accessed October 30, 2004. 34. Lewis, Laurence. “Celebration Traffic Study Reaffirms Benefits of Mixed-Use Development,” HDR Transportline, Vol. 14, No. 2, Sep- tember 2004. 35. Walters, Gerard; Ewing, Reid; Schroeer, William. “Adjusting Com- puter Modeling Tools to Capture Response to Smart Growth: or ‘Poking at the Project Like a Lab Rat,’” Transportation Research Record 1722, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000; pp. 17–26. 36. Khattak, Asad, and Stone, John. Traditional Neighborhood Devel- opment Trip Generation Study, FHWA/NC/2005-05, Center for Urban & Regional Studies, Department of City and Regional Plan- ning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, February 2005. 37. “Office Worker Spending Patterns,” Research Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, International Council of Shopping Centers, New York, NY, Spring 2004. 38. TCRP Report 95: Land Use and Site Design; Chapter 15: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 39. Lund, Hollie M.; Cervero, Robert; and Wilson, Richard W. “Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California,” California DOT, January 2004. 40. Evaluation of Potential Measures For Achieving Modal Targets, Cogan, Owens & Cogan; Alta Planning & Design; and David Evans & Associates; Portland Metro, Portland, OR; July 2005, p. 110. 41. “Summary of Traffic Impact Study Guidelines for Selected Texas Cities,” Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., TexITE, November 1993. 42. “Traffic Impact Studies—Current Practices,” The Urban Trans- portation Monitor, August 5 and September 2, 1994. 43. “Concurrency Management System, Capital Improvements Ele- ment,” Appendix A, Chapter 9, Section 8 in Capital Improvements Inventory and Analysis, City of Destin, Florida, www.cityofdestin. com/pages/community%20development/cp/CH09AGOP060404 final.htm, accessed October 30, 2004. 44. “Policy For Traffic Impact Studies,” City of Tempe, www.tempe. gov/traffic/impacts.htm, accessed October 30, 2004. 45. Traffic Impact Study Manual, City of San Diego, July 1998. 46. Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis of Land Developments, City of San Jose, June 1994, pp. 15–16. 47. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, California DOT, December 2002, p. 4. 48. INDEX PlanBuilder Planning Support System, Release 9.3, Indicator Dictionary, Criterion Planners, Portland, OR, November 2008; pp. 92–102. 49. “GRTA DRI Review Package, Technical Guidelines,” Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, January 14, 2002, pp. 7–8, www.grta. org/doc/PDF_files/dri_technical_guidelines_final_112901.pdf, accessed October 30, 2004. 50. Survey Results—Multi-Use Trip Generation: Internal Capture Rates Questionnaire,” Zoomerang, www.zoomernag.com/reports/ public_report.zgi?ID=L2263NJNHL4U, accessed October 31, 2004. 51. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments: Adjusting Site-Level Vehicle Trip Generation Using URBEMIS, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Asso- ciates, San Francisco, CA, August 2005. 52. Software User’s Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Windows With Enhanced Construction Module, Jones & Stokes Associates, Sacramento, CA, April 2005. 53. Ewing, Reid. “Beyond Density, Mode Choice, and Single Purpose Trips,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 49, Issue 4, 1995, pp. 19–21. 54. Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1983. 55. Trip Generation Handbook, 1st edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1999. 110