IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v94y2020icp1-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transportation demand management (TDM) and social justice: A case study of differential impacts of TDM strategies on various income groups

Author

Listed:
  • Hasnine, Md Sami
  • Habib, Khandker Nurul

Abstract

The paper presents an evaluation of welfare gains and losses of individual commuters in response to various transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. A computationally tractable mode choice model for commuters is estimated using data collected in the Region of Peel, Ontario in 2014 through a joint revealed and stated preference survey. The survey intended to obtain information on the impacts of TDM strategies on commuting. The empirical investigation reveals that the impact of TDM strategies vary by different income groups. In particular, low-income households are the clear gainers when transit attributes such as fare and travel time are reduced, and vice versa. It is found that bike-related TDM strategies, such as showers, lockers, and bike accessible ramps, can certainly help encourage the use of bikes among commuters, but on their own, their impact will most likely be insufficient to convince commuters to change their commuting mode. However, bike share, car share, and emergency ride home programs at workplaces have higher compensating variation than the other TDM strategies. The likely cause of their higher impact could be due to the low entry investment required, in the case of the bike and car share programs, and the risk remediation provided, in the case of emergency ride programs. Though this microeconomic approach is explicitly aimed at the commuters of the Region of Peel, a similar approach can be taken elsewhere to measure the differential monetary benefit of TDM strategies on different income groups across the population.

Suggested Citation

  • Hasnine, Md Sami & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2020. "Transportation demand management (TDM) and social justice: A case study of differential impacts of TDM strategies on various income groups," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-10.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:94:y:2020:i:c:p:1-10
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X19303269
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salomon, Ilan & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2x75525j, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Thijs Dekker & Caspar G. Chorus, 2018. "Consumer surplus for random regret minimisation models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 269-286, July.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    4. Nayel Urena Serulle & Cinzia Cirillo, 2016. "Transportation needs of low income population: a policy analysis for the Washington D.C. metropolitan region," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 103-123, March.
    5. Ma, Shuhong & Kockelman, Kara M., 2016. "Welfare Measures to Reflect Home Location Options When Transportation Systems Are Modified," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 55(1), April.
    6. Hasnine, Md Sami & Graovac, Ana & Camargo, Felipe & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2019. "A random utility maximization (RUM) based measure of accessibility to transit: Accurate capturing of the first-mile issue in urban transit," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 313-320.
    7. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    8. Nahmias–Biran, Bat-hen & Shiftan, Yoram, 2016. "Towards a more equitable distribution of resources: Using activity-based models and subjective well-being measures in transport project evaluation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 672-684.
    9. de Jong, Gerard & Daly, Andrew & Pieters, Marits & van der Hoorn, Toon, 2007. "The logsum as an evaluation measure: Review of the literature and new results," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 874-889, November.
    10. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    11. Litman, Todd, 2003. "The Online TDM Encyclopedia: mobility management information gateway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 245-249, July.
    12. McConnell K. E., 1995. "Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-270, November.
    13. Dong, Xiaojing & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E. & Bowman, John L. & Walker, Joan L., 2006. "Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 163-180, February.
    14. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kadkhodaei, Masoud & Shad, Rouzbeh & Ziaee, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Affecting factors of double parking violations on urban trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 80-88.
    2. Zhou, Xizhen & Lv, Mengqi & Ji, Yanjie & Zhang, Shuichao & Liu, Yong, 2023. "Pricing curb parking: Differentiated parking fees or cash rewards?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 46-58.
    3. Kadkhodaei, Masoud & Shad, Rouzbeh & Ziaee, Seyed Ali & Kadkhodaei, Mohsen, 2023. "Prediction model for drivers' tendency to perpetrate a double parking violation on urban trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 331-339.
    4. Bohman, Helena, 2021. "Same, same but different? Neighbourhood effects of accessibility on housing prices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 52-60.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buonocore, Ciro & Carlucci, Fabio & Ciciarelli, Lucia & Papola, Andrea & Tinessa, Fiore & Tocchi, Daniela & Trincone, Barbara, 2023. "Accessibility analysis in spatial planning: A case of special economic zones (SEZs) in Campania, Southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Nahmias-Biran, Bat-hen & Oke, Jimi B. & Kumar, Nishant, 2021. "Who benefits from AVs? Equity implications of automated vehicles policies in full-scale prototype cities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 92-107.
    3. Chalak, Ali & Al-Naghi, Hani & Irani, Alexandra & Abou-Zeid, Maya, 2016. "Commuters’ behavior towards upgraded bus services in Greater Beirut: Implications for greenhouse gas emissions, social welfare and transport policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 265-285.
    4. Cai, Zeen & Mo, Dong & Geng, Maosi & Tang, Wei & Chen, Xiqun Michael, 2023. "Integrating ride-sourcing with electric vehicle charging under mixed fleets and differentiated services," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Chorus, Caspar G., 2012. "Logsums for utility-maximizers and regret-minimizers, and their relation with desirability and satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1003-1012.
    6. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    7. Bouscasse, Hélène & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2019. "Perceived comfort and values of travel time savings in the Rhône-Alpes Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 370-387.
    8. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    9. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Liu, Gang, 2007. "A behavioral model of work-trip mode choice in Shanghai," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 456-476.
    11. Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani, 2012. "Accessibility analysis and transport planning: an introduction," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 1, pages 1-12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Hartleb, Johann & Schmidt, Marie, 2022. "Railway timetabling with integrated passenger distribution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(3), pages 953-966.
    13. Pamela Giustinelli, 2016. "Group Decision Making With Uncertain Outcomes: Unpacking Child–Parent Choice Of The High School Track," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(2), pages 573-602, May.
    14. Krygsman, Stephan & Arentze, Theo & Timmermans, Harry, 2007. "Capturing tour mode and activity choice interdependencies: A co-evolutionary logit modelling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 913-933, December.
    15. Reema Bera & Bhargab Maitra, 2021. "Analyzing Prospective Owners’ Choice Decision towards Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Urban India: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    16. Bills, Tierra S. & Walker, Joan L., 2017. "Looking beyond the mean for equity analysis: Examining distributional impacts of transportation improvements," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 61-69.
    17. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    18. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    19. Feo-Valero, María & Arencibia, Ana Isabel & Román, Concepción, 2016. "Analyzing discrepancies between willingness to pay and willingness to accept for freight transport attributes," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 151-164.
    20. Waddell, Paul & Boeing, Geoff & Gardner, Max & Porter, Emily, 2018. "An Integrated Pipeline Architecture for Modeling Urban Land Use, Travel Demand, and Traffic Assignment," SocArXiv 74zaw, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:94:y:2020:i:c:p:1-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.