Published
2020-10-08
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Kevin Kane, Jenneille Hsu, Joseph Cryer, Marco Anderson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Affecting commute mode choice in Southern California: Which employer-based strategies work?
Kevin Kane
Southern California Association of Governments
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6109-7358
Jenneille Hsu
Joseph Cryer
Marco Anderson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2020.1558
Keywords: travel demand management, neighborhood, land use, mode shift
Abstract
Interest in mandatory employer-based trip reduction (EBTR) programs has been renewed due to increased emphasis on reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. This paper analyzes survey data from 2004 to 2016 from an EBTR program in Southern California, known as Rule 2202, which allows employers with more than 250 workers to choose among implementing commute reduction strategies to meet performance standards, show evidence of obtaining omissions credits, or pay a fee-in-lieu. We report program statistics and conduct bivariate and regression analyses to determine which land-use and location characteristics, employer characteristics, and mitigation strategies explain cross-sectional differences in average vehicle ridership (AVR) and AVR improvement to understand where future AVR increases might be realized. Decreasing program participation suggests that alternatives to commute-reduction strategies make financial sense to regulated employers, but Rule 2202 employers report higher alternative transportation shares than the region as a whole. AVR is found to be highest at smaller worksites, in transit-supported and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, and where employers support vanpool programs. Multivariate analyses indicate that AVR gains were also highest in commercially dense neighborhoods, for retail businesses, and where guaranteed ride home programs were offered, showing promise for future AVR gains.
References
Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100(2), 223–251.
Clark, W. A. V., Anderson, E., Östh, J., & Malmberg, B. (2015). A Multiscalar analysis of neighborhood composition in Los Angeles, 2000–2010: A location-based approach to segregation and diversity.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(6), 1260–1284. doi:10.1080/00045608.2015.1072790
Dielman, T. E. (1983). Pooled cross-sectional and time series data: A survey of current statistical methodology. The American Statistician, 37(2), 111–122.
Dill, J. (1998). Mandatory employer-based trip reduction: What happened? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1618, 103–110. doi:10.3141/1618-12
Dill, J., & Wardell, E. (2018). Factors affecting worksite mode choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1994(1), 51–57. doi:10.3141/1994-07
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. doi:10.1080/01944361003766766
Herzog, E., Bricka, S., Audette, L., & Rockwell, J. (2006). Do employee commuter benefits reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption? Results of fall 2004 survey of best workplaces for commuters.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1956, 34–41. doi:10.3141/1956-05
Hipp, J. R., & Boessen, A. (2013). Egohoodsas waves washing across the city: A new measure of “neighborhoods.” Criminology, 51(2), 287–327. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12006
Kneisel, R. (2001). Voluntary ridesharing after deregulation: Findings from work sites exempted from California Rule 2202 on-road motor vehicle mitigation options. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1765, 20–26. doi: 10.3141/1765-04
Ramsay, K., & Bell, A. (2014). Smart location database. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/sld_userguide.pdf
Salon, D., Boarnet, M. G., Handy, S., Spears, S., & Tal, G. (2012). How do local actions affect VMT? A critical review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(7), 495–508. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.006
SCAG. (2016). The 2016-2040 regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy. Los Angeles: Southern California Association of Governments.
Skelton, G. (2008). A smart plan for smart growth, Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/21/local/me-cap21
United States Department of Transportation (2019). Transportation Demand Management. Last modified November 1, 2019. Retrieved from https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/trans_demand.htm
Zolnik, E. J. (2016). Inducing demand by expanding road capacity: Controlling for the rebound effect. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(4), 837–852. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1167584
Zuehlke, K., & Guensler, R. (2007). Employer perceptions and implementation of commute alternatives strategies. Journal of Public Transportation, 10(4), 171–194.
