This work analyzes the effects of home-based teleworking on the number of trips and weekly miles travelled by mode and purpose for one-worker households in Great Britain using data from the National Travel Survey for the period between 2005 and 2012. Two path analysis models are developed, one considering weekly trips and travel distances by mode and the other weekly trips and travel distances by purpose. Both models consider teleworking frequency in the context of home and workplace land-use characteristics, commuting distance, car ownership levels and weekly trips and travel distances. This framework allows us to explicitly model endogenous relations in the chains of decisions relating these variables. The results suggest that home-based teleworking is a strategy used by people to cope with long and costly commutes. Workers living in less transit accessible areas and with longer commutes tend to work from home more frequently. The main conclusions relating to teleworking frequency point to the fact that it increases weekly miles travelled, particularly by car, while it does not reduce commuting distances travelled. These results suggest that home-based teleworking is not an effective travel demand management strategy, particularly because it seems to increase car use. The overall main result is that teleworkers travel more by more polluting transport modes.
Neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage has a profound impact on individuals’ earnings and life satisfaction. Since definitions of the neighbourhood and research designs vary greatly across studies, it is difficult to ascertain which neighbourhoods and outcomes matter the most. By conducting parallel analyses of the impact of neighbourhood deprivation on life satisfaction and earnings at multiple scales, we provide a direct empirical test of which scale matters the most and whether the effects vary between outcomes. Our identification strategy combines rich longitudinal information on individual characteristics, family background and initial job conditions for England and Wales with econometric estimators that address residential sorting bias, and we compare results for individuals living in choice-restricted social housing with results for those living in self-selected privately rented housing. We find that the effect of neighbourhood deprivation on life satisfaction and wages is negative for both outcomes and largely explained by strong residential sorting on both individual and neighbourhood characteristics rather than a genuine causal effect. We also find that the results overall do not vary by neighbourhood scale.
The objective of this study is to analyze the effects of road transportation investment on economic output and induced travel demand. Data for U.S. urbanized areas are analyzed within a dynamic panel vector auto-regression model to test whether the effects of transportation-induced economic growth and travel demand can be empirically validated. The results show that investment in road capacity increases average economic growth while simultaneously inducing additional growth in traffic (vehicle miles traveled). Indeed, a general failure of investment to alleviate levels of congestion is found; this finding suggests that productivity shifts are brought about through a net increase in the scale of travel and associated interactions rather than improved network performance as measured by travel times. The evidence also shows that congestion forms part of the decision criterion used to allocate investments in road capacity. If improvements in network performance are to be achieved in a climate of travel demand growth, demand management techniques may be more effective than capacity expansion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.