Transportation

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 385–414 | Cite as

Metropolitan size and the impacts of telecommuting on personal travel

  • Pengyu Zhu
  • Liping Wang
  • Yanpeng Jiang
  • Jiangping Zhou
Article

Abstract

Telecommuting has been proposed by policy makers as a strategy to reduce travel and emissions. In studying the metropolitan size impact of telecommuting on personal travel, this paper addresses two questions: (1) whether telecommuting is consistently a substitute or complement to travel across different MSA sizes; and (2) whether the impact of telecommuting is higher in larger MSAs where telecommuting programs and policies have been more widely adopted. Data from the 2001 and 2009 National Household Travel Surveys are used. Through a series of tests that address two possible empirical biases, we find that telecommuting consistently had a complementary effect on one-way commute trips, daily total work trips and daily total non-work trips across different MSA sizes in both 2001 and 2009. The findings suggest that policies that promote telecommuting may indeed increase, rather than decrease, people’s travel demand, regardless of the size of the MSA. This seems to contradict what telecommuting policies are designed for. In addition, model results show that the complementary impact of telecommuting on daily travel is lower in larger MSAs, in terms of both daily total work trips and daily total non-work trips.

Keywords

Telecommuting Personal travel Complement Substitute Commute Non-work trips 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Project Numbers: 71573232].

References

  1. Balepur, P., Varma, K., Mokhtarian, P.: Transportation impacts of center-based telecommuting: interim findings from the Neighborhood Tele-centers Project. Transportation 25(3), 287–306 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bound, J., Jaeger, D.A., Baker, R.M.: Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90(430), 443–450 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Bris, M., Pawlak, J., Polak, J.W.: How is ICT use linked to household transport expenditure? A cross-national macro analysis of the influence of home broadband access. J. Transp. Geogr. 60, 231–242 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao, X.: E-shopping, spatial attributes, and personal travel: a review of empirical studies. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2135, 160–169 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.: The intended and actual adoption of online purchasing: a brief review of recent literature. Institute of transportation studies. University of California, Davis, Davis (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Cao, X., Douma, F., Cleaveland, F.: The influence of e-shopping on shopping travel: evidence from Twin Cities. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2157, 147–154 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao, X., Xu, Z., Douma, F.: The interactions between e-shopping and traditional in-store shopping: an application of structural equations model. Transportation 39(5), 957–974 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Telecommunications and travel demand and supply: aggregate structural equation models for the US. Transp. Res. Part A 41, 4–18 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I.: Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S. Transportation 32(1), 37–64 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Community Planning Workshop.: Oregon Office of Energy’s telework program evaluation. Extracted on August 08, 2010 from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/10687 (2003)
  11. Fox, M.: Transport planning and the human activity approach. J. Transp. Geogr. 3(2), 105–116 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gareis, K.: Home-based versus mobile telework: the interrelationships between different types of telework. In: Jackson, P., Rapp, B. (eds.) Organisation and Work Beyond 2000, pp. 171–185. Springer, Berlin (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, W.H.: Econometric Analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  14. Hall, A.R., Rudebusch, G.D., Wilcox, D.W.: Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation. Int Econ Rev 37(2), 283–298 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamer, R., Kroes, E., Ooststroom, H.: Teleworking in the Netherlands: an evaluation of changes in travel behavior. Transportation 18(4), 365–382 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. He, S.Y., Hu, L.: Telecommuting, income, and out-of-home activities. Travel Behav. Soc. 2(2015), 131–147 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helminen, V., Ristimäki, M.: Relationships between commuting distance, frequency and telework in Finland. J. Transp. Geogr. 15(5), 331–342 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson, D.K., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Impacts of center-based telecommuting on travel and emissions: analysis of the puget sound demonstration project. Transp. Res. D 1(1), 29–45 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiang, Y.: Two empirical essays in environmental and urban economics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland (2008)Google Scholar
  20. Kim, S.-N.: Two traditional questions on the relationships between telecommuting, job and residential location, and household travel: revisited using a path analysis. Ann. Reg. Sci. 56(2), 537–563 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, S.-N.: Is telecommuting sustainable? An alternative approach to estimating the impact of home-based telecommuting on household travel. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11(2), 72–85 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, S.-N., Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Home-based telecommuting and intra-household interactions in work and non-work travel: a seemingly unrelated censored regression approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 80, 197–214 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kitamura R., Mokhtarian, P., Pendyala, R., Goulias, K.: An evaluation of telecommuting as a trip reduction measure. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Planning and Transport Research and Computation (PTRC), Education and Research Services Limited, University of Sussex. Brighton, England, September 1991, pp. 69–80 (1991)Google Scholar
  24. Lee, B.: Urban Spatial Structure and Commuting in US Metropolitan Areas. Conference Paper. Western Regional Science Association 45th Annual Meeting (2006)Google Scholar
  25. Mateyka, P.J., Rapino, M.A., Landivar, L.C.: Home-based workers in the United States: 2010. Curr. Popul. Rep. 70–132. downloaded from https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-132.pdf (2012)
  26. Mokhtarian, P.L.: Telecommuting and travel: state of the practice, state of the art. Transportation 18, 319–342 (1991)Google Scholar
  27. Mokhtarian, P.L.: A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travel. Urban Studies 35(2), 215–241 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L., Salomon, I.: Methodological issues in the estimation of the travel, energy and air quality impacts of telecommuting. Transp. Res. A 29(4), 283–302 (1995)Google Scholar
  29. Mokhtarian, P.L., Ho, C.I., Hung, S.W., Lam, T.B., Raney, E.A., Redmond, L.S. et al.: 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, Davis (1997)Google Scholar
  30. Mokhtarian, P.L., Collantes, G.O., Gertz, C.: Telecommuting, residential location, and commute-distance traveled: evidence from State of California employees. Environ. Plan. A 36(10), 1877–1897 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muhammad, S., Ottens, H.F.L., Ettema, D., Jong, T.: Telecommuting and residential locational preferences: a case study of the Netherlands. J. Hous. Built Environ. 22(4), 339–358 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NAE: Telecommunications for enhanced metropolitan function and form: report to the director of Telecommunications Management. National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. (1969)Google Scholar
  33. Nelson D, Niles J (2000) Observations on the causes of nonwork travel growth. In: Transportation Research Board Paper. No. 00-1232, 79th Annual Meeting, January 9–13Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, P., Safirova, E., Walls, M.: Telecommuting and environmental policy: lessons from the ecommute program. Transp. Res. Part D 12(3), 195–207 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilles, J.M., et al.: Telecommuting–alternative to urban transportation congestion. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 6(2), 77–84 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olszewski, P., Mokhtarian, P.: Telecommuting frequency and impacts for State of California employees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 45(3), 275–286 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L.: 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 (2005)
  38. Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Which came first, the telecommuting or the residential relocation? An empirical analysis of causality. Urban Geogr. 27(7), 590–609 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pendyala, R., Goulias, K., Kitamura, R.: Impact of telecommuting on spatial and temporal patterns of household travel. Transportation 18(4), 383–409 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salomon, I.: Technological change and social forecasting: the case of telecommuting as a travel substitute. Transp. Res. Part C-Emerg. Technol. 6(1–2), 17–45 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shea, J.: Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 79, 348–352 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Srinivasan, S., Ferreira, J.: Travel behavior at the household level: understanding linkages with residential choice. Transp. Res. Part D 7(3), 225–242 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Staiger, D., Stock, J.H.: Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3), 557–586 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stock, J.H.: The other transformation in econometric practice: robust tools for inference. J. Econ. Perspect. 24(2), 83–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strathman, J.G., Dueker, K.J., Davis, J.S.: Effects of household structure and selected travel characteristics on trip chaining. Transportation 21, 23–45 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tal, G.: Overestimation reduction in forecasting telecommuting as a TDM Policy. Transp. Res. Rec. 2082, 8–16 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wooldridge, J.M.: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. South-Western, Cincinnati (2000)Google Scholar
  48. Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, pp. 623–625. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  49. Zhu, P.: Are telecommuting and personal travel complements or substitutes? Ann. Reg. Sci. 48(2), 619–639 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhu, P.: Telecommuting, household commute and location choice. Urban Stud. 50(12), 2441–2459 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu, P., Dong, H., Wu, C.: Do residents of smart growth neighborhoods in Los Angeles travel “smarter”? Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2397, 61–71 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.Zhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations