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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Albertson LA (1977) Telecommunications as a travel substitute: Some psychological, organizational, and social aspects. Journal of Communication27(2): 32-43.
Arnott R &; Small K (1994) The economics of traffic congestion. American Scientist82: 446-455.
Baldassare M (1991) Transportation in suburbia: Trends in attitudes, behaviors and policy preferences in Orange County, California. Transportation18: 207-222.
Cervero R (1987-88) Congestion, growth, and public choices. Berkeley Planning Journal3(2): 55-75.
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.
The Economist (1998) A survey of commuting: To travel hopefully. September 5, pp. 3-18.
Edmonson B (1998) In the driver's seat. American Demographics, March: 46-52.
Federal Highway Administration (1997) Our Nation's Travel: 1995 NPTS Early Results Report,US Department of Transportation, Washington DC, September.
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.
Gordon P, Richardson HW, &; Jun MJ (1991) The commuting paradox: Evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association57(4): 416-420.
Greene WH (1995) LIMDEP Version 7.0 User's Manual. Econometric Software, Inc, Bellport,NY.
Larson J (1998) Surviving commuting. American Demographics, July: 55ff.
Levinson DM &; Kumar A (1994) The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable. Journal of the American Planning Association60(3): 319-332.
Lindelof B (2000) Many commuters savor private luxury of drive time. The Sacramento Bee,February 8, pp. A1 and A12.
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.
Mokhtarian PL (1998) A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travel.Urban Studies35(2): 215-241.
Mokhtarian PL &; Salomon I (1997) Modeling the desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models. Transportation Research A31(1): 35-50.
Mokhtarian PL &; Salomon I (forthcoming) How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research A.
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.
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.
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.
Salomon I &; Mokhtarian PL (1997) Coping with congestion: Understanding the gap between policy assumptions and behavior. Transportation Research D2(2): 107-123.
Salomon I &; Mokhtarian PL (1998) What happens when mobility-inclined market segments face accessibility-enhancing policies? Transportation Research D3(3): 129-140.
Shamir B (1991) Home: The perfect workplace? In: Zedeck S (ed) Work and Family(pp 273-311) San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sipress, A (1999) Not all commuters driven crazy. Washington Post, October 18, pp. A1 and A12.
Taylor, M (2000) Drivers brave traffic tie-ups to travel solo. San Francisco Chronicle, June 19, pp. A1 and A11.
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.
Veall MR &; KF Zimmermann (1994) Goodness of fit measures in the tobit model. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics56(4): 485-499.
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.
Young W &; Morris J (1981) Evaluation by individuals of their travel time to work. Transportation Research Record794: 51-59.
About this article
Cite this article
Redmond, L.S., Mokhtarian, P.L. The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount. Transportation 28, 179–205 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010366321778
- ordered probit
- travel behavior