When is commuting desirable to the individual?

Growth and Change

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 334-359

  Ory, David T ^a   Mokhtarian, Patricia L ^a   Redmond, Lothlorien S ^a   Salomon, Ilan ^b   Collantes, Gustavo O ^a   Choo, Sangho ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; COMMUTING; MOBILITY; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; SAN FRANCISCO; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1842793959     PISSN: 00174815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.2004.00252.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Albertson, L.A. 1977. Telecommunications as a travel substitute: Some psychological, organizational, and social aspects. Journal of Communication 27(2): 32-43.
2. Babbie, E. 1998. The Practice of social research, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
3. Baldassare, M. 2002. PPIC statewide survey: Special survey on land use. Public Policy Institute of California, November. Available at http://www.ppic.org/publications/CalSurvey32/survey32.pdf, accessed December 13, 2002.
4. Beroldo, S. 2002. Commute profile 2002: A survey of San Francisco Bay Area commute patterns. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., October. The author may be contacted at sberoldoρides.org.
5. Cervero, R., and K.L. Wu. 1998. Sub-centring and commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Urban Studies 35: 1059-1076.
6. Choo, S., G.O. Collantes, and P.L. Mokhtarian. 2001. Modeling individuals' relative desired travel amounts. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-01-13, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, November. Available at http://its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2001/RR-01-13.pdf.
7. Choo, S., G.O. Collantes, and P.L. Mokhtarian. Forthcoming. Wanting to travel, more or less: Exploring the determinants of a perceived deficit or surfeit of personal travel. Transportation.
8. Clark, W.A.V., and M. Kuijpers-Linde. 1994. Commuting in restructuring urban regions. Urban Studies 31: 465-483.
9. Collantes, G.O., and P.L. Mokhtarian. 2002. Determinants of subjective assessments of personal mobility. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-02-11, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, August. Available at http://its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2002/RR-02-11.pdf.
10. Curry, R.W. 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. Available at http://its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2000/RR-00-06.pdf.
11. Dobson, R., F Dunbar, C.J. Smith, D. Reibstein, and C. Lovelock. 1978. Structural models for the analysis of traveler attitude-behavior relationships. Transportation 7: 351-363.
12. Dumas, J.S., and R. Dobson. 1979. Linking consumer attitudes to bus and carpool usage. Transportation Research A 13: 417-423.
13. The Economist. 1998. A survey of commuting: To travel hopefully. September 5, pp. 3-18.
14. Edmonson, B. 1998. In the driver's seat. American Demographics, March, pp. 46-52.
15. El Nasser, H. 2002. Commuting offers coveted refuge for some. USA Today, May 30.
16. Gordon, P., H.W. Richardson, and M-J. Jun. 1991. The commuting paradox: Evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association 57(4): 416-420.
17. Greene, W.H. 1995. LIMDEP version 7.0 user's manual. Econometric Software, Inc., Bellport, New York.
18. Greene, W.H. 2000. Econometric analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
19. Hendrick, B. 2001. Some people LOVE being stuck in their cars. Some people LIKE long commutes. Are these people CRAZY?! The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, June 1.
20. Higano, Y., and I. Orishimo. 1990. Impact of spatially separated work places on urban residential location, consumption and time allocation. Papers of the Regional Science Association 68: 9-21.
21. Kitamura, R., P.L. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet. 1997. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2): 125-158.
22. Larson, J, 1998. Surviving commuting. American Demographics, July, pp. 55ff.
23. Levinson, D., and A. Kumar. 1994. The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable. Journal of the American Planning Association 60(3): 319-332.
24. Lindelof, B. 2000. Many commuters savor private luxury of drive time. The Sacramento Bee, February 8, pp. A1 and A12.
25. McKelvey, R.D., and W. Zavoina. 1975. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 4(1): 103-120.
26. McNamara, M. 2000. The shameful secret is out: Some of us enjoy commuting. Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, February 9, p. 2 of the "Southern California Living" section.
27. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2001. 1998 Base year validation of travel demand models for the San Francisco Bay Area (BAYCAST-90): Technical summary, May. Available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/forecast.htm, accessed January 4, 2003.
28. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2002. Census 2000 supplementary survey data for San Francisco Bay Area. Available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/census/BayAreaC2SS.htm, accessed January 18, 2003.
29. Mokhtarian, P.L., and I. Salomon. 1997. Modeling the desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models. Transportation Research A 31(1): 35-50.
30. Mokhtarian, P.L., and I. Salomon. 2001. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research A 35.8: 695-719.
31. Mokhtarian, PL., 1. Salomon, and L.S. Redmond. 2001. Understanding the demand for travel: It's not purely "derived." Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 14(4): 355-380.
32. Redmond, L.S. 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. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-00-08. Available at http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2000/RR-00-08.pdf.
33. Redmond, L.S., and P.L. Mokhtarian. 2001a. Modeling objective mobility: The impact of travel-related attitudes, personality, and lifestyle on distance traveled. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-01-09, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, June. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-RR-01-09/.
34. Redmond, L.S., and P.L. Mokhtarian. 2001b. The positive utility of the commute: Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute time. Transportation 28: 179-205.
35. Richter, J. 1990. Crossing boundaries between professional and private life. In Grossman H & Chester L (eds) Behavioral travel-demand models pp. 143-63. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Shamir, B. 1991. Home: The perfect workplace? In Zedeck, Sheldon (ed) Work and family pp. 273-311. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Sipress, A. 1999. Not all commuters driven crazy. Washington Post, October 18, pp. A1 and A12.
38. Stopher, P. 2004. Reducing road congestion: A reality check. Transport Policy.
39. Taylor, B.D. 2002. Rethinking traffic congestion. Access (The magazine of the University of California Transportation Center) 21 (Fall): 8-16.
40. Taylor, M. 2000. Drivers brave traffic tie-ups to travel solo. San Francisco Chronicle, June 19, pp. A1 and A11.
41. Texas Transportation Institute. 2002. 2002 urban mobility study, News Release, June 20. Available at http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/news_release.
42. Tischer, M.L., and R.V. Phillips. 1979. The relationship between transportation perceptions and behavior over time. Transportation 8: 21-36.
43. 2 in the ordinal probit model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 16(4): 333-342.