The concept of sustainability has grown to include concerns about social equity, as well as economic and environmental issues. Under this framework, this study investigated commuting through a jobs–housing balance and excess commuting approach. Excess commuting has been widely researched for more than 30 years. However, a set of data from the Bureau of the Census offers new opportunities, as the set is highly spatially disaggregated and available annually for the years 2002 to 2011. Taking Leon County, Florida, as a case study, this research analyzed local jobs–housing balance measures to determine whether commuters with different incomes experienced divergent outcomes during the recent U.S. recession (2006 to 2011). Regional job clusters were identified, and levels of commuting into these areas were compared with broader averages. Last, a relative commuting burden metric was introduced to contextualize monetarily what these commuting patterns mean for different income groups. The results showed that commuting distances have increased over time and have increased the most for low-income workers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ScottD. M., KanaroglouP. S., and AndersonW. P.Impacts of Commuting Efficiency on Congestion and Emissions: Case of the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1997, pp. 245–257.
2.
HensherD. A.Climate Change, Enhanced Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Passenger Transport—What Can We Do to Make a Difference?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2008, pp. 95–111.
3.
ZhengJ., Atkinson-PalomboC., McCahillC., O'HaraR., and GarrickN. W.Quantifying the Economic Domain of Transportation Sustainability. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2242, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 19–28.
4.
MerrimanD., OhkawaraT., and SuzukiT.Excess Commuting in the Tokyo Metropolitan-Area—Measurement and Policy Simulations. Urban Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1995, pp. 69–85.
5.
AnasA., ArnottR., and SmallK. A.Urban Spatial Structure. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1998, pp. 1426–1464.
6.
LaymanC. C., and HornerM. W.Comparing Methods for Measuring Excess Commuting and Jobs–Housing Balance: Empirical Analysis of Land Use Changes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2174, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 110–117.
7.
KimC., SangS., ChunY., and LeeW.Exploring Urban Commuting Imbalance by Jobs and Gender. Applied Geography, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2012, pp. 532–545.
8.
HornerM. W.Extensions to the Concept of Excess Commuting. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2002, pp. 543–566.
9.
SaelensB. E., and HandyS. L.Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2008, pp. S550–S566.
10.
HornerM. W.A Multi-Scale Analysis of Urban Form and Commuting Change in a Small Metropolitan Area (1990–2000). Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 315–332.
11.
NiedzielskiM. A.A Spatially Disaggregated Approach to Commuting Efficiency. Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 13, 2006, pp. 2485–2502.
12.
HornerM. W., and SchleithD.Analyzing Temporal Changes in Land-Use Transportation Relationships: A LEHD-Based Approach. Applied Geography, Vol. 35, Nos. 1-2, 2012, pp. 491–498.
13.
BoarnetM. G.Planning, Climate Change, and Transportation: Thoughts on Policy Analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 8, 2010, pp. 587–595.
14.
CastilloH., and PitfieldD. E.Elastic—A Methodological Framework for Identifying and Selecting Sustainable Transport Indicators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2010, pp. 179–188.
15.
BernsteinL., PachauriR. K., and ReisingerA.Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 2008.
16.
KainJ. F.Housing Segregation, Negro Employment, and Metropolitan Decentralization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 82, No. 2, 1968, pp. 175–197.
17.
CerveroR.Jobs–Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 55, No. 2, 1989, pp. 136–150.
18.
HornerM. W., and MeffordJ. N.Investigating Urban Spatial Mismatch Using Job–Housing Indicators to Model Home–Work Separation. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2007, pp. 1420–1440.
19.
FrostM., LinnekerB., and SpenceN.Excess or Wasteful Commuting in a Selection of British Cities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 32, No. 7, 1998, pp. 529–538.
20.
LooB. P. Y., and ChowA. S. Y.Jobs–Housing Balance in an Era of Population Decentralization: An Analytical Framework and a Case Study. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2011, pp. 552–562.
21.
HamiltonB. W.Wasteful Commuting. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 90, No. 5, 1982, pp. 1035–1053.
22.
WhiteM. J.Urban Commuting Journeys Are Not Wasteful. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 96, No. 5, 1988, pp. 1097–1110.
23.
CharronM.From Excess Commuting to Commuting Possibilities: More Extension to the Concept of Excess Commuting. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1238–1254.
24.
MaK. R., and BanisterD.Urban Spatial Change and Excess Commuting. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2007, pp. 630–646.
25.
NiedzielskiM. A., HornerM. W., and XiaoN.Analyzing Scale Independence in Jobs–Housing and Commute Efficiency Metrics. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 58, 2013, pp. 129–143.
26.
MurphyE., and KillenJ. E.Commuting Economy: An Alternative Approach for Assessing Regional Commuting Efficiency. Urban Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1255–1272.
27.
YangJ. W., and FerreiraJ.Choices Versus Choice Sets: A Commuting Spectrum Method for Representing Job–Housing Possibilities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2008, pp. 364–378.
28.
KimS.Excess Commuting for Two-Worker Households in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1995, pp. 166–182.
29.
GiulianoG., and SmallK. A.Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?Urban Studies, Vol. 30, No. 9, 1993, pp. 1485–1500.
30.
GiulianoG., and SmallK. A.Subcenters in the Los Angeles Region. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1991, pp. 163–182.
31.
SpearB.Improving Employment Data for Transportation Planning.Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 2011.
32.
AbowdJ., and LaneJ.New Approaches to Confidentiality Protection: Synthetic Data, Remote Access and Research Data Centers. In Privacy in Statistical Databases (Domingo-FerrerJ., and TorraV., eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 282–289.
33.
AbowdJ., StephensB., VilhuberL., AnderssonF., McKinnyK., RoemerM., and WoodcockS.The LEHD Infrastructure Files and the Creation of the Quarterly Workforce Indicators. In Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics Technical Papers.Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002.
34.
CerveroR., and WuK. L.Sub-Centring and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980–90. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1059–1076.
