Influence of the residential and work environment on car use in dual-earner households

This paper analyses whether the decision to commute by car is influenced by built environment characteristics of residential neighbourhoods and, more especially, of work locations, taking into account interdependencies between household partners. It shows that the residential environment only affects car use among single-earners. Conversely, for all commuters, but in particular for dual-earners, characteristics of the work location affect whether they commute by car. Even in dual-earner households with two cars, work environment plays a role. We found that in cases of dual-earners with only one car, the partners with the longest commuting distances and the lowest density work locations are most likely to commute by car. Moreover, in households with young children, men are more inclined to leave the car at home. Other features relating to work also affect car commuting, including work flexibility and, especially, possession of a company car. We conclude that future policies aimed at reducing car use should place greater focus on work factors.

[1]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd Edition , 2005 .

[2]  M. Dijst,et al.  Policies for Urban Form and their Impact on Travel: The Netherlands Experience , 2004 .

[3]  Daniel A. Badoe,et al.  Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling , 2000 .

[4]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Modeling intra-household interactions and group decision-making , 2005 .

[5]  M. Roorda,et al.  An integrated model of vehicle transactions, activity scheduling and mode choice , 2009 .

[6]  Pnina O. Plaut,et al.  The intra-household choices regarding commuting and housing , 2006 .

[7]  M. Batty,et al.  Representing multifunctional cities: density and diversity in space and time , 2004 .

[8]  Cynthia Chen,et al.  Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density , 2008 .

[9]  Jos van Ommeren,et al.  Job and residential search behaviour of two-earner households , 2000 .

[10]  Frank S. Koppelman,et al.  Representing the differences between female and male commute behavior in residential location choice models , 2001 .

[11]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us? , 2005 .

[12]  Yoram Shiftan,et al.  Effect of Employment Site Characteristics on Commute Mode Choice , 2002 .

[13]  G. Giuliano,et al.  Car ownership, travel and land use: a comparison of the US and Great Britain , 2006 .

[14]  R. Cervero,et al.  COMMUTING IN TRANSIT VERSUS AUTOMOBILE NEIGHBORHOODS , 1995 .

[15]  Bert van Wee,et al.  Ex-post Evaluation of Thirty Years of Compact Urban Development in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[16]  Robert Cervero,et al.  Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework , 2002 .

[17]  M. Baucus Transportation Research Board , 1982 .

[18]  Daniel A. Badoe Modelling Work-Trip Mode Choice Decisions in Two-Worker Households , 2002 .

[19]  Y. Susilo,et al.  The influence of built environment to the trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands , 2007 .

[20]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Modeling household activity travel behavior: Examples of state of the art modeling approaches and research agenda , 2009 .

[21]  Lothlorien S. Redmond,et al.  The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount , 2001 .

[22]  J. Dargay,et al.  Volatility of car ownership, commutingmode and time in the UK , 2007 .

[23]  H. Timmermans,et al.  A model of household task allocation and time use , 2005 .

[24]  Robert Cervero,et al.  Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay area , 1996 .

[25]  M. Horner Spatial Dimensions of Urban Commuting: A Review of Major Issues and Their Implications for Future Geographic Research* , 2004, The Professional Geographer.

[26]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods? , 2005 .

[27]  M. Dijst,et al.  Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and policentric urban systems , 2001 .

[28]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  Transport facilities and residential choice behavior : a model of multi-person choice processes , 1993 .

[29]  Thomas F. Golob,et al.  A Simultaneous Model of Household Activity Participation and Trip Chain Generation , 1999 .

[30]  S. Rosenbloom Understanding Women's and Men's Travel Patterns: The Research Challenge , 2006 .

[31]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis , 2001 .

[32]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Transport-Related Fringe Benefits: Implications for Moving and the Journey to Work , 2006 .

[33]  R. Cervero MIXED LAND-USES AND COMMUTING: EVIDENCE FROM THE AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY , 1996 .

[34]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  A learning-based transportation oriented simulation system , 2004 .

[35]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Modeling residential sorting effects to understand the impact of the built environment on commute mode choice , 2007 .

[36]  Daniel G. Chatman,et al.  How Density and Mixed Uses at the Workplace Affect Personal Commercial Travel and Commute Mode Choice , 2003 .

[37]  L. Frank,et al.  Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking , 1994 .

[38]  T. Schwanen,et al.  Re-evaluating the Impact of Urban Form on Travel Patterns in Europe and North-America , 2006 .

[39]  Maarten van Ham,et al.  Job access at labour market entry and occupational achievement in the life course , 2003 .

[40]  T. Spit,et al.  Planning the compact city: The randstad Holland experience , 1999 .