Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 619–639 | Cite as

Are telecommuting and personal travel complements or substitutes?

  • Pengyu ZhuEmail author
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

Whether telecommuting and personal travel are complements or substitutes is a key question in urban policy analysis. Urban planners and policy makers have been proposing telecommuting as part of travel demand management (TDM) programs to reduce congestion. Based on small samples, several empirical studies have found that telecommuting has a substitution effect (although small) on commute travel, and have thus argued that policies promoting telecommuting might be promising in reducing travel. Using data from the 2001 and 2009 National Household Travel Surveys (NHTS), this study involves two large national samples to try to more accurately identify the impact of telecommuting on workers’ travel patterns. Through a series of empirical tests, this research investigates how telecommuting influences workers’ one-way commute trips, daily total work trips, and daily non-work trips, and tries to provide some answers to a question that has been discussed for some years—namely, whether telecommuting and personal travel are complements or substitutes. The results of these tests suggest that telecommuting has been an important factor in shaping personal travel patterns over the 2001–2009 period, and that telecommuting indeed has a complementary effect on not just workers’ one-way commute trips, but also their daily total work trips, and total non-work trips.

JEL Classification

R41 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

168_2011_460_MOESM1_ESM.xls (120 kb)
ESM 1 (XLS 120 kb)

References

  1. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90(430): 443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cairncross F (1997) The death of distance: how the communications revolution will change our lives? Harvard Business School Press BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Choo S, Mokhtarian PL, Salomon I (2005) Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S. Transportation 32(1): 37–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fox M (1995) Transport planning and the human activity approach. J Transp Geogr 3(2): 105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gareis K (2003) Home-based versus mobile telework: the interrelationships between different types of telework. In: Jackson P, Rapp B (eds) Organisation and work beyond 2000. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham S, Marvin S (2000) Urban planning and the technological future of cities. In: Wheeler JO, Aoyama Y, Warf B (eds) Cities in the telecommunication age. Routledge, New York, pp 71–96Google Scholar
  7. Greene WH (1997) Econometric analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall AR, Rudebusch GD, Wilcox DW (1996) Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation. Int Econ Rev 37(2): 283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamer R, Kroes E, Ooststroom H (1991) Teleworking in the Netherlands: an evaluation of changes in travel behaviour. Transportation 18(4): 365–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Handy SL, Mokhtarian PL (1995) Planning for telecommuting: measurement and policy issues. J Am Plan Assoc 61(1): 99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heckman JJ, MaCurdy TE (1985) A simultaneous equations linear probability model. Can J Econ 18(1): 28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janelle DG (1986) Metropolitan expansion and the communications—transportation trade-off. In: Hanson S (eds) The geography of urban transportation. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 357–385Google Scholar
  13. Jiang Y (2008) Two empirical essays in environmental and urban economics. PhD Dissertation, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  14. Knoke W (1996) Bold new world: the essential road map to the twenty-first century. Kodansha International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Mokhtarian PL (1998) A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travel. Urban Stud 35(2): 41–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mokhtarian PL, Collantes GO, Gertz C (2004) Telecommuting, residential location, and commute-distance traveled: evidence from State of California employees. Environ Plan A 36(10): 1877–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL, Salomon I (1995) Methodological issues in the estimation of the travel, energy and air quality impacts of telecommuting. Transp Res A 29(4): 283–302Google Scholar
  18. Mokhtarian PL, Ho CI, Hung SW, Lam TB, Raney EA, Redmond LS et al (1997) Residential area-based offices project: final report on the evaluation of impacts. No. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-17). Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  19. Naisbitt J (1984) Megatrends: ten new directions transforming our lives. Warner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Naisbitt R (1995) The global paradox. Avon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Negroponte N (1995) Being digital. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelson D, Niles J (2000) Observations on the causes of nonwork travel growth. Transportation Research Board Paper. No. 00-1232, 79th Annual Meeting, January 9–13Google Scholar
  23. Niles JS (1994) Beyond telecommuting: a new paradigm for the effect of telecommunications on travel. Prepared for the US Department of Energy, Offices of Energy Research and Scientific Computing, Washington, DC 20585, Report No. DOE/ER-0626), SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  24. Ory DT, Mokhtarian PL (2005) The impact of telecommuting on the commute time, distance, and speed of state of California workers. Extracted from http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-RR-05-23 on April 02, 2009
  25. Ory DT, Mokhtarian PL (2006) Which came first, the telecommuting or the residential relocation? An empirical analysis of causality. Urban Geogr 27(7): 590–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pagan AR, Hall D (1983) Diagnostic tests as residual analysis. Econ Rev 2: 159–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pascal A (1987) The vanishing city. Urban Stud 24: 597–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salomon I (1986) Telecommunications and travel: a review. Transp Res A 20: 223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shea J (1997) Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev Econ Stat 79: 348–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Srinivasan S, Ferreira J (2002) Travel behavior at the household level: understanding linkages with residential choice. Transp Res D Trans Environ 7(3): 225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Staiger D, Stock JH (1997) Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3): 557–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stock JH (2010) The other transformation in econometric practice: robust tools for inference. J Econ Perspect 24(2): 83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strathman JG, Dueker KJ, Davis JS (1994) Effects of household structure and selected travel characteristics on trip chaining. Transportation 21: 23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toffler A (1981) The third wave. William Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Webber MM (1963) Order in diversity: community without propinquity. In: Wingo L (eds) Cities and space: the future use of urban land. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp 25–54Google Scholar
  36. Webber MM (1968) The post-city age. Daedalus 97(4): 1091–1110Google Scholar
  37. Zahavi Y (1979) The UMOT project. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Report No. DOT-RSPA-DPB-20-79-3Google Scholar
  38. Zahavi Y, Ryan JM (1980) Stability of travel components over time. Transp Res Record 750: 19–26Google Scholar
  39. Zahavi Y, Talvitie A (1980) Regularities in travel time and money expenditures. Transp Res Record 750: 13–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Community and Regional Planning Program, Department of Public Policy and AdministrationBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  3. 3.School of Policy Planning and DevelopmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations