Transportation

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 179–205 | Cite as

The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount

  • Lothlorien S. Redmond
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
Article

Abstract

Two measures of commute time preferences – Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute amount (a variable indicating the desire to commute "much less" to "much more" than currently) – are modeled, using tobit and ordered probit, respectively. Ideal Commute Time was found to be positively related to Actual Commute Time and to a liking and utility for commuting, and negatively related to commute frequency and to a family/community-oriented lifestyle. Relative Desired Commute, on the other hand, was negatively related to amounts of actual commute and work-related travel, but positively related to travel liking and a measure of commute benefit. Overall, commute time is not unequivocally a source of disutility to be minimized, but rather offers some benefits (such as a transition between home and work). Most people have a non-zero optimum commute time, which can be violated in either direction – i.e. it is possible (although comparatively rare, occurring for only 7% of the sample) to commute too little. On the other hand, a large proportion of people (52% of the sample) are commuting longer than they would like, and hence would presumably be receptive to reducing (although usually not eliminating) that commute.

commuting ordered probit tobit travel behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albertson LA (1977) Telecommunications as a travel substitute: Some psychological, organizational, and social aspects. Journal of Communication27(2): 32-43.Google Scholar
  2. Arnott R &; Small K (1994) The economics of traffic congestion. American Scientist82: 446-455.Google Scholar
  3. Baldassare M (1991) Transportation in suburbia: Trends in attitudes, behaviors and policy preferences in Orange County, California. Transportation18: 207-222.Google Scholar
  4. Cervero R (1987-88) Congestion, growth, and public choices. Berkeley Planning Journal3(2): 55-75.Google Scholar
  5. Curry RW (2000) Attitudes toward Travel: The Relationships among Perceived Mobility, Travel Liking, and Relative Desired Mobility. Master's Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, June.Google Scholar
  6. The Economist (1998) A survey of commuting: To travel hopefully. September 5, pp. 3-18.Google Scholar
  7. Edmonson B (1998) In the driver's seat. American Demographics, March: 46-52.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Highway Administration (1997) Our Nation's Travel: 1995 NPTS Early Results Report,US Department of Transportation, Washington DC, September.Google Scholar
  9. Gordon P &; Richardson HW (1995) Sustainable congestion. In: Brotchie J, Batty M, Blakely E, Hall P, and Newton P (eds) Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century(pp 348-358). Melbourne, Australia, Longman House.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon P, Richardson HW, &; Jun MJ (1991) The commuting paradox: Evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association57(4): 416-420.Google Scholar
  11. Greene WH (1995) LIMDEP Version 7.0 User's Manual. Econometric Software, Inc, Bellport,NY.Google Scholar
  12. Larson J (1998) Surviving commuting. American Demographics, July: 55ff.Google Scholar
  13. Levinson DM &; Kumar A (1994) The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable. Journal of the American Planning Association60(3): 319-332.Google Scholar
  14. Lindelof B (2000) Many commuters savor private luxury of drive time. The Sacramento Bee,February 8, pp. A1 and A12.Google Scholar
  15. McNamara, M (1999) On a road trip, the traffic is just part of the scenery. Los Angeles Times,November 10, p.2 of the “Living” section.Google Scholar
  16. Mokhtarian PL (1998) A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travel.Urban Studies35(2): 215-241.Google Scholar
  17. Mokhtarian PL &; Salomon I (1997) Modeling the desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models. Transportation Research A31(1): 35-50.Google Scholar
  18. Mokhtarian PL &; Salomon I (forthcoming) How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research A.Google Scholar
  19. Pazy A, Salomon I, &; Pintzov T (1996) The impacts of women's careers on their commuting behavior: A case study of Israeli computer professionals. Transportation Research A30(4):269–286.Google Scholar
  20. Redmond LS (2000) Identifying and Analyzing Travel-related Attitudinal, Personality, and Lifestyle Clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master's Thesis, Transportation Technology and Policy Graduate Group, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, September.Google Scholar
  21. Richter J (1990) Crossing boundaries between professional and private life. In: Grossman H &; Chester L (eds) Behavioral Travel-Demand Models(pp 143-163) Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Salomon I &; Mokhtarian PL (1997) Coping with congestion: Understanding the gap between policy assumptions and behavior. Transportation Research D2(2): 107-123.Google Scholar
  23. Salomon I &; Mokhtarian PL (1998) What happens when mobility-inclined market segments face accessibility-enhancing policies? Transportation Research D3(3): 129-140.Google Scholar
  24. Shamir B (1991) Home: The perfect workplace? In: Zedeck S (ed) Work and Family(pp 273-311) San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Sipress, A (1999) Not all commuters driven crazy. Washington Post, October 18, pp. A1 and A12.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, M (2000) Drivers brave traffic tie-ups to travel solo. San Francisco Chronicle, June 19, pp. A1 and A11.Google Scholar
  27. Varma K, Ho C-I, Stanek DM, &; Mokhtarian PL (1998) Duration and frequency of telecenter use: Once a telecommuter, always a telecommuter? Transportation Research C6(1&;2): 47-68.Google Scholar
  28. Veall MR &; KF Zimmermann (1994) Goodness of fit measures in the tobit model. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics56(4): 485-499.Google Scholar
  29. Wachs M, Taylor BD, Levine N, &; Ong P (1993) The changing commute: A case-study of the jobs-housing relationship over time. Urban Studies30(10): 1711-1729.Google Scholar
  30. Young W &; Morris J (1981) Evaluation by individuals of their travel time to work. Transportation Research Record794: 51-59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lothlorien S. Redmond
    • 1
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, DavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, DavisUSA

Personalised recommendations