Transportation

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 163–190 | Cite as

Forecasting telecommuting

An exploration of methodologies and research needs
  • Susan L. Handy
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
Articles
Accepted:

Abstract

Transportation planners increasingly recognize telecommuting as an important trend. But while they often advocate telecommuting as a transportation demand management strategy, transportation planners have made little progress toward incorporating telecommuting into transportation forecasts, at least partly because of the limited data available. In this paper we explore four alternative methodologies for forecasting telecommuting and discuss the kinds of data that must be collected before these methodologies can be applied. The first approach is trend extrapolation, using curves of technological substitution. Sufficient data are currently available to produce forecasts, albeit highly uncertain forecasts, using this approach. However, even with better data this approach does not address underlying factors and trends that will affect the future of telecommuting. As a result, we explore three additional approaches that should produce more reliable forecasts but which require new data and knowledge about telecommuting: analyzing the characteristics of telecommuters in contrast to nontelecommuters, analyzing factors affecting the individual choice to telecommute, and incorporating telecommuting into traditional transportation forecasting models.

Key words

forecasting methodologies technological substitution telecommuting transportation modeling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barff RA & Knight PL (1988) Dynamic shift-share analysis. Growth and Change 19: 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Behavior Research Center, Inc. (1990) Telecommuter Pilot Program Survey of Supervisors and Employee Participants. Prepared for AT&T, December.Google Scholar
  3. Bernardino AT, Ben-Akiva M & Salomon I (1993) A stated preference approach to modeling the adoption of telecommuting. Transportation Research Record 1413: 22–30.Google Scholar
  4. Blackman AW (1974) The market dynamics of technological substitutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 6(1): 41–63.Google Scholar
  5. California, State of (1992) Telecommuting Pilot Project: Final Report. Review and Evaluation Branch, Department of Social Services, Sacramento, CA, April.Google Scholar
  6. Caltrans (1992) State-of-California Annual Commute Survey. Data Provided by the Office of Traffic Improvement, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Caltrans (1993) 1991 Statewide Travel Survey Final Report. Office of Traffic Improvement, Sacramento, CA, December.Google Scholar
  8. Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (CTS) (1992) State of the Commute. Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Dickey JW (1983) Metropolitan Transportation Planning. Second Edition. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Handy SL & Mokhtarian PL (1995a) Planning for telecommuting: measurement and policy issues. Journal of the American Planning Association 61(1): 99–111.Google Scholar
  11. Handy SL & Mokhtarian PL (1995b) The future of telecommuting. Submitted to Futures.Google Scholar
  12. JALA Associates, Inc. (1983) Telecommunications and Energy: The Energy Conservation Implications for California of Telecommunications Substitutes for Transportation. Final Report for the California Energy Commission, December.Google Scholar
  13. JALA Associates, Inc. (1990) The California Telecommuting Pilot Project Final Report. Department of General Services, State of California, Sacramento, CA, June.Google Scholar
  14. Mahmassani HS, Yen J-R, Herman R & Sullivan MA (1993) Employee attitudes and stated preferences towards telecommuting: an exploratory analysis. Transportation Research Record 1413: 31–44.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer MD & Miller EJ (1984) Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  16. Mokhtarian PL (1986) A Descriptive Analysis of Home-Based Workers in the SCAG Region in 1980, Draft. Unpublished report, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, CA, July.Google Scholar
  17. Mokhtarian PL (1991) Telecommuting and travel: state of the practice, state of the art. Transportation 18: 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL & Salomon I (1995) Methodological issues in the estimation of the travel, energy, and air quality impacts of telecommuting. Transportation Research A, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. Mokhtarian PL & Salomon I (1994a) Modeling the choice of telecommuting: setting the context. Environment and Planning A 26(5): 749–766.Google Scholar
  20. Mokhtarian PL & Salomon I (1995) Modeling the choice of telecommuting 2: a case of the preferred impossible alternative. Environment and Planning A, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  21. Mokhtarian PL, Salomon I, Saxena S, Sampath S, Cheung P, Le K & Bagley MN (1994) Adoption of telecommuting in two California State agencies. Submitted to Behaviour and Information Technology.Google Scholar
  22. Mokhtarian PL, Brady T, Yates K, Lopez W & Bickel N (1988) Evaluation Report: Telecommuting Pilot Project for the Southern California Association of Governments. Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, CA, August.Google Scholar
  23. Nilles JM (1988) Traffic reduction by telecommuting: a status review and selected bibliography. Transportation Research-A 22A(4): 301–317.Google Scholar
  24. Pisarski AE (1992) Travel Behavior Issues in the 90's. Prepared for the Office of Highway Information Management, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July.Google Scholar
  25. Quaid M & Lagerberg B (1992) Puget Sound Telecommuting Demonstration: Executive Summary. Program Research, Washington State Energy Office, Olympia, WA, revised November.Google Scholar
  26. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. (1992) Commute Profile '92: An In-depth Look at Commuting in the Bay Area. San Francisco, CA, July.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenthal NH (1990) Evaluating the 1990 Projections of Occupational Employment. Monthly Labor Review (August): 32–48.Google Scholar
  28. Sullivan MA, Mahmassani HS & Yen J-R (1993) A choice model of employee participation in telecommuting under a cost-neutral scenario. Transportation Research Record 1413: 42–48.Google Scholar
  29. US Department of Transportation (1993) Transportation Implications of Telecommuting. Washington, DC, April.Google Scholar
  30. Wycech C & Cuddington J (1991) Bell Atlantic Telecommuting Pilot Final Report. December.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan L. Handy
    • 1
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
    • 2
  1. 1.Community and Regional Planning Program, School of ArchitectureThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering and Institute of Transportation StudiesThe University of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations