Within an activity-based framework, the hypothesis that carpooling imposes a constraint on the way individuals organize their activities was tested, with resulting impacts on traffic peak congestion and trip-chaining behavior. The hypothesis was tested by estimating the joint probability density functions (PDFs) of subsistence, maintenance, and discretionary trips made by carpool and single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) users. Results show that whereas SOV maintenance and discretionary activities are linked to subsistence trips in a joint undertaking, carpool activities suggest discontinuity in the formation of trip chains. A comparison of the joint PDF of subsistence and discretionary activities reveals that trips are conducted either before or after the commute schedule; this results in a temporal shift that reduces peak-period traffic congestion and emission pollution. Marked differences are found to exist between SOV and carpool trip-chaining behavior. Carpoolers are more likely to engage in a greater number of cold-start trip chains; this behavior uncovers a potential negative impact on emission pollution. These findings suggest that a comprehensive approach to the evaluation of carpool programs must take into account the benefits as well as any ensuing negative externalities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Community Survey, 2004 Multi-Year Profiles. Census Bureau, 2004.
2.
TaylorC. J.NozickL. K. and MeyburgA. H.. Selection and Evaluation of Travel Demand Management Measures. In Transportation Research Record 1598, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 49–60.
3.
LitmanT.Guide to Calculating TDM Benefits. In TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 1999. www.vtpi.org/tdm/.
4.
LitmanT.Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates, and Implications. In TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2005. www.vtpi.org/tdm/.
5.
WintersP. L. and HendricksS. J.. Quantifying the Business Benefits of TDM.Center for Urban Transportation Research, Office of Research and Special Programs, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2003.
6.
TDM Evaluation—Assessing Benefits and Costs.Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2006.
7.
Ridesharing. In TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2006. www.vtpi.org/tdm/.
8.
FergusonE.The Influence of Employer Ridesharing Programs on Employee Mode Choice. Transportation, Vol. 17, 1990, pp. 179–207.
9.
Improving Transportation, Pricing, Land Use, Air Quality (TPLUAQ) Models—VIII. Emission Model Sensitivity to Transportation Changes. FHWA, 2006. tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/general/itpl/ch8.stm.
WallaceB.BarnesJ. and RutherfordG. S.. Evaluating the Effects of Traveler and Trip Characteristics on Trip Chaining, with Implications for Transportation Demand Management Strategies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 97–106.
12.
O'FallonC. and SullivanC.. Trip Chaining: Understanding How New Zealanders Link Their Travel.Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, 2005.
13.
RutherfordG. S.McCormackE. and WilkinsonM.. Travel Impacts of Urban Form from an Analysis of Seattle Travel Diaries. In Urban Design, Telecommuting and Travel Forecasting Conference: Summary Recommendations and Compendium of Papers, Travel Model Improvement Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997.
14.
WambalabaF.ConcasS. and ChavarriaM.. Price Elasticity of Rideshare: Commute Fringe Benefits for Vanpools.Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa, Fla., 2004.
15.
SchrefflerE. N.Alternative Modes as an Air Quality Mitigation Strategy. Final Report 566.Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, 2004.
16.
Special Report 264: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing Ten Years of Experience.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
17.
Transportation Costs & Benefits Resources for Measuring Transportation Costs and Benefits. In TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2005. www.vtpi.org/tdm/.
18.
Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategies. In TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2005.
19.
MurakamiE. and WattersonW. T.. Developing a Household Travel Panel Survey for the Puget Sound Region. In Transportation Research Record 1285, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 40–46.
20.
MaJ. and GouliasK. G.A Dynamic Analysis of Person and Household Activity and Travel Patterns Using Data from the First Two Waves in the Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 31997, pp. 309–331.
21.
Ben-AkivaM. E. and BowmanJ. L.. Activity-Based Disaggregate Travel Demand Model System with Daily Activity Schedules. In EIRASS Conference on Activity-Based Approaches: Activity Scheduling and the Analysis of Activity Patterns, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1995.
22.
BhatC.Modeling the Commute Activity-Travel Pattern of Workers: Formulation and Empirical Analysis. Transportation Science, Vol. 35, No. 12001, pp. 61–79.
23.
PeterG.KumarA. and RichardsonH. W.. Beyond the Journey to Work. Transportation Research A, Vol. 22, No. 61988, pp. 419–426.
24.
EttemaD. F. and TimmermansH. J. P.. Activity-Based Approaches: An Introduction. In Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis (EttemaD. F. and TimmermansH. J. P., eds.), Pergamon, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1997, pp. 1–36.
25.
BhatC.An Econometric Framework for Modeling the Daily Activity-Travel Pattern of Individuals. In Activity-Based Analysis Workshop, National Institute of Statistical Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1997.
26.
HamedM. H. and ManneringF. L.. Modeling Travelers’ Postwork Activity Involvement: Toward a New Methodology. Transportation Science, Vol. 27, No. 41993, pp. 381–394.
27.
KitamuraR. and FujiiS.. Two Computational Process Models of Activity-Travel Behavior. In Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling (GärlingT.LaitilaT. and WestinK., eds.), Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998, pp. 251–279.
28.
McGuckinN. and MurakamiE.. Examining Trip-Chaining Behavior: Comparison of Travel by Men and Women. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1693, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1999, pp. 79–85.
29.
DavidsonD.Impact of Suburban Employee Trip Chaining on Transportation Demand Management. In Transportation Research Record 1321, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 82–89.
30.
PurvisC. L.Changes in Regional Travel Characteristics and Travel Time Expenditures in San Francisco Bay Area: 1960–1990. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 99–110.
31.
StrathmanJ. G. and DuekerK. J.. Understanding Trip Chaining: Special Reports on Trip and Vehicle Attributes. 1990 NPTS Report Series. FHWA, 1995.
32.
PaganA. and UllahA.. Nonparametric Econometrics.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1999.
33.
ScottD. W.Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization.Wiley and Sons, New York, 1992.
34.
SilvermanB. W.Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis.Chapman & Hall, London, 1986.
35.
LiQ. and RacineJ. S.. Nonparametric Estimation of Distributions with Categorical and Continuous Data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Vol. 86, 2003, pp. 266–292.
