This article presents the results of a web survey of 118 residents in the Knoxville, Tennessee, metropolitan region to explore the impacts of the use of e-mail and the Internet on personal trip-making behavior. Respondents were required to be active drivers and users of e-mail and/or the Internet. Approximately 40% reported that their use of these information technologies has led to less driving overall, and 18% reported less rush hour driving. Although use of the Internet has led to both trip reduction and new trip generation, overall, weekly trips appear to be reduced by 8% from the national average of almost 28 person trips per week in 2001. The number of places respondents have access to e-mail and the Internet is highly related to trip reduction and new trip generation. Education and income were positively related to new trip generation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkinson, R. (1998). Technological change and cities. Cityscape, 3, 129-170.
2.
Dewey, J. (2002). Report on trends and conditions research: The impact of the Internet on transportation in Florida—Current economic perspective and possibilities for further research. University of Florida, Bureau of eEconomic and Business Research. Retrieved from www11.myflorida.com/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT_BC354_44_rpt.pdf
3.
Golob, T. (2001). Travel behaviour.com: Activity approaches to modeling the effects of information technology on personal travel behavior. In D. Fensher (Ed.), Travel behaviour research: The leading edge (pp. 145-183). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
4.
Golob, T., & Regan, A. (2001). Impacts of information technology on personal travel and commercial vehicle operations: Research challenges and opportunities. Transportation Research, Part C, 9.
5.
Hamer, R., Kroes, E., & van Ooststroom, H. (1992). Teleworking in the Netherlands: An evaluation of changes in travel behavior—Further results. Transportation Research Record, 1357, 82-89.
6.
Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (1995). Planning for Telecommuting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 99-111.
7.
Hendricks, S., Winters, P., & Dyehouse, C. (2002, February). Telecommunications and its future role in the public transportation arena. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Retrieved from www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/NCTR20Telecommunications.pdf
8.
Hu, P., & Young, J. (1999, December). Summary of travel trends—1995 National Personal Transportation Survey. Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved from www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/trends_report.pdf
Mokhtarian, P. (1997). The transportation impacts of telecommuting: Recent empirical findings. In P. Stopher & M. Lee-Gosselin (Ed.), Understanding travel behaviour in an era of change (pp. 91-106). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
12.
Mokhtarian, P. (2000). Telecommunications and travel. Transportation in the new millennium. Washington, DC: Committee on Telecommunications and Travel Behavior, Transportation Research Board.
13.
Mokhtarian, P., & Salomon, I. (2002). Emerging travel patterns: Do telecommunicationsmake a difference? In H. S. Mahmassani (Ed.), In perpetual motion: Travel behavior research opportunities and application challenges (pp. 143-182). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
14.
Mundorf, N., Xiao, J., Dholakia, R., Dholakia, N., & Zhao, M. (2001). Potential impact of Internet on travel decisions. Working paper from the Research Institute for Telecommunications and Information Marketing. Retrieved from http://ritim.cba.uri.edu/WorkingPapers
Niles, J. (1994). Presentation—Beyond telecommuting: A new paradigm for the effect of telecommunications on travel global telematics (Report DOE/ER-0626). Washington, DC: Department of Energy.
17.
Niles, J. (1997). Considering telecommunications for all trip types in a metropolitan region’s transportation model (Urban Design, Telecommunication and Travel Forecasting Conference: Summary, Recommendations and Compendium of Papers). Retrieved from http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/udes/niles.stm
18.
Niles, J. (2001). Technology & transportation: The dynamic relationship (Inquiry). Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute.
19.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, September). The technological reshaping of metropolitan America (OTAETI-643). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
Salomon, I. (1996). Telecommunications, cities and technological opportunism. Annals of Regional Science, 30(1), 75-90.
21.
Stough, R., & Paelinck, J. (1997). Substitution and complimentary effects of information on regional travel and location behavior (Urban Design, Telecommunication and Travel Forecasting Conference: Summary, Recommendations, and Compendium of Papers). Retrieved from http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/udes/
22.
Tayyaran, M., & Khan, A. (1997). Factors for the study of long-term impacts of telecommuting and intelligent transportation systems on residential and business location choice (Urban Design, Telecommunication and Travel Forecasting Conference: Summary, Recommendations, and Compendium of Papers). Retrieved from http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/udes/
23.
Viswanathan, K., & Goulias, K. (2001). Travel behavior implications of information and communications technology in Puget Sound. Transportation Research Record, 1752, 157-165.
24.
Wells, K., Douma, F., Loimer, H., Olson, L., & Pansing, C. (2001). Telecommuting implications for travel behavior. Transportation Research Record, 1752, 148-156.
25.
Zumkeller, D. (2002). Transportation and telecommunication: First comprehensive surveys and simulation approaches. In H. S. Mahmassani (Ed.), In perpetual motion: Travel behavior research opportunities and application challenges (pp. 183-207). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
