Commuter Mode Choice and Free Car Parking, Public Transportation Benefits, Showers/Lockers, and Bike Parking at Work: Evidence from the Washington, DC Region

Abstract

Municipalities and employers in the U.S. attempt to reduce commuting by automobile through commuter benefits for riding public transportation Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2014 68 offset the effect of these incentives. Benefits for public transportation, walking, and cycling, seem to work best when car parking is not free. IntroductionTravel demand management (TDM) objectives include congestion mitigation, conservation of financial and energy resources, pollution reduction, and improvement in health outcomes and quality of life measures (Cervero 1991;Giuliano 1992;TCRP 2002TCRP , 2010FHWA 2012b). At the local and regional levels, planning authorities have begun to implement policies to achieve TDM objectives and increase travel by public transportation, cycling, and walking, including changes to parking fee structures and requirements, zoning ordinances, building codes, and roadway regulations (TCRP 2010).Another important policy tool to achieve TDM objectives has been the creation and expansion of commuter benefits-although the types and levels of these benefits has varied across both modes and time (Potter et al. 2006;TCRP 2003;EPA 2007; IRS 2013). Free car parking, however, generally continues to be the most prevalent type of benefit offered to commuters; only about 5 percent of auto commuters pay for parking in the U.S., and commuters, on average, avoid direct payment of the majority of actual parking costs (Wachs 1990;Shoup 2005;TCRP 2005; FHWA 2012a).The interaction effects among commuter benefits have received relatively little attention in the literature, and few commuter mode choice studies jointly include benefits for driving, public transportation, and walking or cycling. However, the importance of policy interactions relating to travel behavior has long been recognized. For example, Pucher (1988) conducted an international comparison of transportation policies, and argued that public transportation benefits in the U.S. are largely rendered ineffective in the absence of complementary automobile taxation policies.More recently, Washbrook et al. (2006) conducted a study of the effect of road pricing and parking charges on commuter mode choice in Vancouver, Canada, and concluded that effective TDM requires a combination of disincentives for driving and incentives for walking, cycling, and public transportation. Similarly, Habibian and Kermanshah (2011) highlight the push and pull factors for the decision to drive. Also, Marsden (2006) It remains a question whether, at the level of the individual commuter, packages that offer benefits for driving as well as walking, cycling, and public transportation may effectively promote TDM objectives. This study attempts to address that question and the growing need for understanding the cumulative effects of commuter benefits on travel behavior.

Choice of commuting mode among employees: Do home neighborhood environment, worksite neighborhood environment, and worksite policy and supports matter?

“…Nevertheless, our findings are consistent with previous studies that indicate a higher likelihood of commuting by public transit among employees that use an employer-sponsored public transit pass (Badoe and Yendeti, 2007; Hamre and Buehler, 2014; Lachapelle and Frank, 2009). In addition to worksite supports and policies, built environment factors such as distance to public transit is also a consistent correlate for using public transit (Dalton et al, 2013), which may be a result of having easily accessible and convenient use of public transit.…”

“…Our findings are also consistent with United Kingdom (UK) data, which indicate that home-work distance was negatively associated with active commuting (particularly walking) (Dalton et al, 2013; Panter et al, 2011a), despite the different common commuting distances between the US and UK. Furthermore, our findings confirmed previously reported associations between bike storage facilities and active commuting using US data (Hamre and Buehler, 2014; Kaczynski et al, 2010). Although most previous studies of active transport have focused on home neighborhood environment characteristics, our findings indicate that the worksite neighborhood environment might impact employees’ choice of commuting mode as well.…”

Planning for Bike Share Connectivity to Rail Transit

“…Finally, research on access to transit via bicycling indicates that it promises the sustainability benefits of walking while extending the effective access shed to a distance of 2 to 5 kilometers (1.2 to 3.1 miles), depending on the speed of the transit accessed (Krizek and Stonebraker 2010). In addition to distance, other barriers to bicycle transportation include perceived safety, exposure to weather, ownership of bicycles, and available secure parking (Hamre and Buehler 2014; Handy, Xing, and Buehler 2010; Mullan 2013; Orrick, Frick, and Ragland 2011; Twaddle, Hall, and Bracic 2010). Bike sharing provides at least a partial solution to the last two barriers.…”

Analyzing the transition from a public bicycle system to bicycle ownership: A complex relationship

“…Many levels of government in European countries and Japan (where the bicycle is already an integrated transportation mode in urban transit) and in countries like the U.S. (where cycling is growing in popularity) have developed a bicycle parking policy that mandates (by law) the provision of proper bicycle storage in workplaces (Hamre and Buehler, 2014) and even in residential areas. For example, the experience of the Netherlands stands out with respect to the latter; the Dutch Government requires municipal, regional and provincial authorities to provide bicycle parking facilities, specifically in new buildings, to minimize theft (Heinen et al, 2013).…”