Life, Family, and Peers on Transport. Owen Waygood PhD Candidate Kyoto University

Transcription

1 Life, Family, and Peers on Transport Owen Waygood PhD Candidate Kyoto University

2 Kitamura as a sensei Welcome to the family What are you doing? Now that s interesting Get it together 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 2

3 Fridays with Kitamura Social and environmental concerns People s opinions and attitudes Stages of life The built environment 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 3

4 Where People Live Built Environment: Fukui, K. Population Commercial Employment Household Individuals Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 4

5 People Getting Around Activity engagement: Susilo Cohorts: Maeda Lifecycle: Sun Children: Waygood 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 5

6 The Short-term Variability and the Long-term Changes of Individual Spatial Behavior in Urban Areas 2002/2005 Student: Yusak Octavius Susilo (UWE, Bristol, UK) Aims: Exploring the variability and the changes of the way individual compose their activity-travel engagements and their spatial movement in short & long term periods Methods: Introduce model frameworks of how individual compose their travel and their activity space Estimate with simultaneous equation models over time (from day-to-day basis and long term period) Explore the impacts of individual heterogeneity, internal and external causes and trends of changes Data used: Osaka Metropolitan Area person-trip dataset and Mobidrive six-week travel diary

7 Results 1. The individual activity space variability is highly influenced by individual s out-of-home commitments, their work and home locations as well as their unique preferences. 2. Unobserved heterogeneity and difference commitments across individuals are found as a major component that accounts for the variability of their centroid locations on weekdays. 3. The urban residents have expanded their travel and activities engagement as well as their action space over the 20 year period. In last 20 year period, transit users have superior action space than other mode users 4. The structural relationships underlying their activity-travel patterns were not stable over time. Auto commuters, transit commuters and non-commuters are exhibit different tendencies of change, highly influenced by their commute mode characteristics. 5. The stability test has revealed that only the under-specified model is transferable over periods.

8 Cohorts: Maeda People are influenced by the era that they grow up in. This will affect their attitudes and beliefs. Those will affect their transportation mode use. 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 8

9 Lifecycle Stages: Sun At different stages of one s life, there are different values and restrictions. If the population of an area remains the same, No Is just cohort differences between built environments? Separating out households into lifecycle stages. Built environment explains more of the difference. 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 9

10 Children More vulnerable to built environment deficiencies for non-motorized travel. Compact development and children Opinions on modes Characterize travel Role of built environment and people on: Independent travel Exercise 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 10

11 Children Results Personal: Opinions don t matter, but differ by density. Societal: Overrides built environment Built environment: Affects distances -> important for non-motorized Affects interaction People Knowing your neighbors Traveling with other youth Exercise Independent travel important 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 11

12 Thank you Any Questions?

13 World View: Sakamoto individualists, egalitarians, hierarchists and fatalists. strongly associated with attitudes toward: public policies, residential location preferences, health and environmental consciousness. Marketing: identify individuals to whom various mobility management measures would be effective. Factors exhibit strong correlations with age or sex, basic demographic variables. 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 13

14 Dake s Worldview Categories Collectivism Egalitarian Hierarchist Individualism Individualist Egalitarianism Fatalist Hierarchism 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 14

15 Distinguishing the Built Environments Population Population density Diurnal population change Population concentration Commercial Employment Household Individuals Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 15

16 Distinguishing the Built Environments Population Commercial Office density Retail shop density Supermarket density Service density Employment Household Individuals Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 16

17 Distinguishing the Built Environments Population Commercial Employment Employment rate change Employment rate Commuter percentage Household Individuals Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 17

18 Population Commercial Employment Household Distinguishing the Built Environments Single person household percentage Average household size Individuals Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 18

19 Population Commercial Employment Household Individuals Distinguishing the Built Environments Youth and Elderly percentages Average age Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 19

20 Distinguishing the Built Environments Population Commercial Employment Household Individuals Automobile ownership 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 20

21 Five Built Environments

22 Highly Commercial 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 22

23 Mixed Commercial 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 23

24 Mixed Residential 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 24

25 Autonomous 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 25

26 Unurbanized 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 26

27 Household Lifecycle Stages Younger single Younger childless couple Pre-school nuclear Young school nuclear Older school nuclear All adults Older childless couple Older single Single parent Others 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 27

28 Household Automobile-Use by Built Environment Type over Four Decades 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Highly Commercial Area Mixed Commercial Area Mixed Residential Area Autonomous Area Unurbanized area 0% /15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 28

29 Summary of Trend Higher density areas saw less growth in automobile s share of trips. Is it because young families move out and only the older people who grew-up walking remain? 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 29

30 Household Automobile-Use by Lifecycle across the Built Environments (2000) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Highly Commercial area Mixed Commercial area Mixed Residential Area Autonomous area 0% Younger single Pre-school nuclear Older school nuclear Older childless couple Single parent Unurbanized area 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 30

31 Household Automobile-Use by Lifecycle across the Built Environments (2000) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Highly Commercial area Mixed Commercial area Mixed Residential Area Autonomous area 0% Younger single Young school nuclear All adults Unurbanized area 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 31

32 ANOVA Results Sum of Squares F Corrected Model * Intercept * Built Environment (BE) * Lifecycle stage (LCS) * LCS x BE * Error Corrected Total /15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 32

33 Household Trip Number by Lifecycle across the Built Environments (2000) Highly Commercial area Mixed Commercial area Mixed Residential 2 0 Younger single Preschool nuclear Older school nuclear Older childless couple Single parent Autonomous area Unurbanized area 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 33

34 Household Trip Number by Lifecycle across the Built Environments (2000) Highly Commercial area Mixed Commercial area Mixed Residential 2 0 Younger single Young school nuclear All adults Autonomous area Unurbanized area 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 34

35 Conclusions The built environment explains more of the changes seen than household lifecycle stage. Greatest increases in low density areas. Similar reduced car use is seen within the same built environment, not household lifecycle stage. Similar trip generation is seen within household lifecycle stage, not the built environment. For a area-wide TOD-like built environment, higher density areas have restricted car use. 2/15/2013 Kitamura Symposium 35

36 Model Systems for Non-Commuters Time Budget No. of Trip Chain (n C ) No. of Trips (n T ) No. of Non Work Visits (v NW ) Time for Non Work Activity (t NW ) Total Travel Time (t T ) Residential t NW = ft ( R, W ) NW Location Accessibility Individual vnw = Life fv Cycle ( t, and, ) Lifestyle NW NW R W Orientation n C = fn ( v,, ) C NW R W nt = v + nc tt = ft ( n,, ) T T R W

37 Model Systems for Commuters t NW = ft ( d,,,, ) NW X tw vw R W vnw = fv ( t,,, ) NW NW d X R W n C = fn ( v,,,, ) C NW vw d X R W nt = v + nc = vw + vnw + nc tt = ft ( n,,, ) T T d X R W

38 The Concept of the Second Moment School (5,10) Trip 2 Office (10,10) Trip 1 Trip 3 HOME (1,7) X Trip 5 1 = L Trip 4 I H Grocery Store (3,1) 3 C X i 3 i= Y C = Y i 3 i = 1 I C (X C, Y C ) The individual action space represented by : I H I = L C 1. The distance of activities location centroid from home locations (I H ) 2. The diversification of activity locations toward the centroid location (I C ) = 2 = 2 ()Τϕ X X /Φ42 + ()Τϕ Y Y /Φ42 Τφ Τ H C 3 { i C i C } i = 1 H C 2 2 ()Τϕ X X /Φ42 + ()Τϕ Y Y21 /Φ42 Τφ Τφ 1 50

39 Related publications Susilo, Y.O. and Kitamura, R. (2008) Structural changes in commuters daily travel: The case of auto and transit commuters in the Osaka metropolitan area of Japan, 1980 through Transportation Research A, Vol. 42, pp Kitamura, R. and Susilo, Y.O. (2006) Does a Grande Latte Really Stir Up Gridlock? Stops in Commute Journeys and Incremental Travel. Transportation Research Record, No. 1985, pp Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Susilo, Y.O. and Axhausen, K.W. (2006) How routine is a routine? An analysis of the day-to-day variability in prism vertex location. Transportation Research A, Vol. 40, pp Susilo, Y.O. and Kitamura, R. (2005) On an analysis of the day-to-day variability in the individual s action space: an exploration of the six-week Mobidrive travel diary data. Transportation Research Record, No. 1902, pp Kitamura, R. and Susilo, Y.O. (2005) Is travel demand insatiable?: A study of changes in structural relationships underlying travel, Transportmetrica, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp And still one at drafting stage (has been on-hold for sometime), hopefully will be presented and published at the forthcoming TRB annual meeting.

40 Ryuichi is a teacher who never despise anybody, no matter how weak and inexperience the student is (like me). Despite of his tight schedules, he always have time to tailored his approach based on each students ability and personality. I really miss him as a teacher, a father and a very good friend On my farewell dinner at Ryuichi s house