Transcript New generation

USUAL WORK ARRANGEMENTS:
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND MODEL
IMPLEMENTATION FOR JERUSALEM
•Peter Vovsha, Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York, NY, USA
•Gaurav Vyas, Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York, NY, USA
•Danny Givon, Jerusalem Transportation Masterplan
Team (JTMT), Jerusalem, Israel
•Yehoshua Birotker, Jerusalem Transportation
Masterplan Team (JTMT), Jerusalem, Israel
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
1
Motivation
 Commuting to work:
 Main traffic component in peak periods
 Cornerstone of travel demand modeling
 Traditional view on commuters:




Full-time worker
Commuting every regular workday
Commuting in peak hours AM / PM
Inflexible schedule dictated by employer
 New tendencies:
 Growing number of alternative flexible arrangements
 New phenomena like telecommuting
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
2
Implications for Modeling
 Alternative work arrangements affect:
 Commuting patterns and frequency
 Sensitivity to congestion pricing and other policies
 Correspond to policy levers:
 Compressed work weeks
 Peak spreading for work hours
 Incorporation in travel models:
 Explicit (sub-model) or implicit (DAP, work trip
rates)?
 Assumptions for future (fixed or trends?)
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
3
Taxonomy of Usual Work
Arrangements
Arrangement
Normal
Alternative
Job type
Full time
Part-time
Number of jobs
1
2+
Usual workplace
location
Out of home permanent
At home
Commuting
frequency
5 days a week
1-4 days a week
(compressed)
Out of home variable
6-7 days a week
(extended)
Telecommuting
frequency
Low (less than once a High (once a week or
week)
greater)
Schedule flexibility
No / little
Yes / significant
Usual schedule
AM / PM
Second shift, other
4
Jerusalem Household Travel
Survey, 2010
Population
Full-time
# Households
Sector
workers
Part-time
workers
Secular
Ultra
Orthodox
4,887
5,251
1,277
2,119
1,162
558
Arab
1,224
1,528
198
Total
8,230
7,941
2,033
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
5
• Full-time
Job Type • Part-time
Main Work Arrangement
(lifestyle)
Person and
Household
Characteristics;
Occupation
•1
Number • 2+
of Jobs
Empl.
• Hired
• Self Employed
Type
Work
Place
•Home
•Permanent Work Place
•Varied Work Location
24
Alternatives
If home is
not
the work
place
Usual Work
Location Model
Commuting Frequency and
Flexibility
Commuting Frequency and
Flexibility
Number of Days Working
1/
7
2/
7
3/
7
4/
7
5/
7
6/
7
7/
7
Telecommuting
Frequency (8 categories)
Schedule Flexibility: 1) No, 2)
Some, 3) High, 4) No schedule
Usual Schedule (5 categories)
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
7
Usual Schedule Categories
Usual Arrival
Time to work
Usual Departure Time from work
Before
Noon
4 PM - 6 PM - 8 PM - 10 10 PM After
6 PM 8 PM
PM
12 PM Midnight
Noon-2 PM
2 PM-4PM
Before 6 AM
113
31
58
49
18
11
4
3
6 AM - 8 AM
24
142
670
872
247
39
12
23
8 AM - 10 AM
19
472
881
1,182
557
119
18
32
10 AM - Noon
0
21
43
39
65
27
8
1
Noon - 2 PM
0
1
7
25
14
14
6
3
2 PM - 4 PM
0
0
1
5
15
27
32
5
4 PM - 6 PM
0
0
0
3
8
18
14
7
After 6 PM
0
0
0
0
2
1
19
26
Conventional Schedule
Early Departure
Normal Departure and late arrival
Over Workers (early arrival and late departure)
Second shift workers
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
8
Choice Model 1
 Main Work Arrangement:




2 for Job types
2 for number of jobs
2 for Employment types
3 for Work location
 Utility function:
 4 parameterized terms by main dimensions:




Job types
Number of jobs
Employment types
Work location
 Interaction terms (2-way constants)
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
9
Choice Model 2
 Work Location
 40 TAZs are sampled from the pool of all TAZs
 Size variables include inter-sector friction
variables
 Sampling is based on the employment
characteristics and impedance between origin
and destination TAZ
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
10
Choice Model 3
 Commuting Frequency and Flexibility:
 7 for number of days working
 'n+1' alternatives for telecommuting frequency for
‘n’ number of days at work
 4 for schedule flexibility
 5 for usual work schedule
 Utility function:
 4 parameterized terms by main dimensions:




Number of days at work
Telecommuting frequency
Schedule flexibility
Usual work schedule
 Interaction terms (2-way constants)
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
11
Behavioral Insights –
Main Work Arrangements
Variables
Part-time
Age>65 years
More
2+ jobs
Selfemployed
Home as
work place
More
Less
Young Arab
Variable
work place
More
Arab Male
Less
Less
More
Less
Less
Arab Female
More
Less
Less
Less
Less
More
Less
More
Less
Higher
Education
Clerical worker
More
Less
More
More
Less
Manufacturing,
construction
worker
Less
Less
More
Less
More
Nonprofessional
More
Less
Less
More
Less
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
12
Behavioral InsightsMain Work Arrangements
Variables
Part-time
Low Income
More
Female and
presence of
children
More
2+ jobs
Selfemployed
Home as
work place
Variable
work place
Less
More
More
More
More
Less
More for
Arab Sector
More
Less
Only worker
and
household
size>1
Interaction
2+Jobs
Selfemployed
Home as
work place
Variable
work place
Part-time
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Self
employed
Variable
Work place
Positive
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
13
Behavioral Insights –
Work Location
4.00
2.00
0.00
Utility
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
FTW, Male, Medium Income.lower education, Secular(Base)
Female Effect
Highinc Effect
Higher Education
Orthodox
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
PT Worker Effect
Lowinc Effect
Female with pre-school child
Arab
Female with Part time
14
Behavioral Insights –
Work Location (Unique Feature)
Inter-Sector (Social) Friction
Employment Sector/Area
Residential
Sector/Area
Arab
Orthodox Secular
Arab
High
High
Orthodox Very High
Very High
Secular
Very High
High
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
15
Behavioral Insights –
Commuting Frequency Model
Variables
Number of days
at work
Telecommuting
frequency
Schedule
Flexibility
Usual Schedule/
duration
Part-time worker
Less than 5
Less
More
Less
conventional
Self-employed
Less than 5
More
More
Less duration
Multiple jobs
More than 5
More
More
Less
conventional
Variable work
place
Less than or
equal to 5
More
More
More
conventional
Academic
professional
More than 5
More
More
More
conventional
Orthodox-female
Less than 5
Less
Less
Less
conventional
Age>65 years
Less than 5
More
More
Less duration
Higher Education
Less than 5
More
More
More
conventional
16
Behavioral Insights –
Commuting Frequency Model
Variables
Number of days
at work
Female and
presence of
children
Low Income
Telecommuting
frequency
Schedule
Flexibility
Usual Schedule/
work duration
More likely equal
to 5
Less
Less duration
More likely equal
to 5
Less
Less duration
Female and low
income
More
Interaction
No-schedule
Telecommuting
Positive
Nonconventional
schedule
Negative
Some Flexibility
High Flexibility
Negative
Negative
17
Placement
in
Jerusalem
CT-RAMP
ABM
Population Synthesis
Main Long-term
Work Arrangements
1
Long-term Location
Choices
Usual Commuting
Freq. & Flexibility
Household & Person
Mobility Attributes
3
4
2
Daily Activity-Travel Pattern Type
& Time Allocation
Tour
Formation
5
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
Location of
Non-Work Act.
Tour & Trip Details
Traffic &Transit
Network Simulations
18
Forecasting
 Evolution of usual work arrangements:
 Communication technology revolution (work from
home, telecommuting)
 Structural shifts in industry & occupation (flexible
work hours, self employment)
 Consequence of growing congestion (compress
work weeks)
 Choice Models:
 Statistically estimated for base year
 Adjustments for future years:
 Scenarios and trends (for example, growing
telecommuting)
 Policy tests (for example, shifted usual work hours)
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
19
Conclusions and Perspectives
 Understanding principal changes in
commuting patterns:
 Growing share of alternative work arrangements
 Incorporation in travel models:
 Policy lever / scenario management
 Policy implications of alternative work
arranges:
 Beneficial for reduction of commuting volumes in
peak periods
 Demand elasticity to congestion pricing
 Impact on total VMT remains unclear
TRB Application Conference,
May 2013
20