NextTable of Contents
Residential Area-Based Offices Project:
Interim Findings Report on the
Evaluation of Impacts
Patricia L. Mokhtarian
Narayan Balepur
Michelle Derr
Chaang-Iuan Ho
David Stanek
Krishna Varma
Research Report
UCD-ITS-RR-96-11
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: (916) 752-6548 Fax: (916) 752-6572
http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~its/tcenters/tc.stm
Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and
the California Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Improvement
under Interagency Agreement No. 60T381/A4
November 1996
The Residential Area-Based Offices (RABO) Project, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation, is designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of telecommuting centers as an institutional work arrangement and as a transportation
demand management strategy. The program has established a total of 15 telecenters, and evaluation
data were collected from an additional 5 centers. In this volume, the impacts of these telecenters on
work performance, job satisfaction, and travel behavior are evaluated. Four survey instruments were
used to capture telecommuter behavior: an attitudinal survey, a travel diary, an attendance log, and
an exit interview. Data collected through June 1995 were included in the analysis; data from an
additional year of operation will be incorporated in a final report.
Despite efforts to locate centers close to residential areas in order to make walking and biking more
attractive, most commuting to the telecommuting center took place by driving alone. Interestingly,
there was a small, but significant, increase in the number of commute trips apparently largely due
to telecommuters returning to the center after a trip home for lunch. Most importantly, the number
of person-miles of travel decreased by an average of more than 74% for telecenter users on
telecommuting days while the total number of trips remained constant. When this average is
weighted by the average frequency of telecommuting, an average reduction of 19.2% in total
weekday travel was found. However, it must be noted that the telecenter users lived much farther
from work than non-telecommuting control group members (with average daily travel of 91 vs. 48
miles). So while telecommuters traveled less than non-telecommuters on telecommuting days, the
telecommuters still traveled more in the aggregate (telecommuting and non-telecommuting days
combined).
The sites established under the RABO Project had been open for between 2.5 and 20 months through
June 1995. Average site occupancies ranged between 10 and 20% of available workspace days. The
average telecommuting frequency was 25% (or 1¼ days per week) at these sites, compared to 17%
at the non-RABO sites.
On the organizational side, 82% of the managers of telecenter users rated their level of satisfaction
with telecommuting centers as high or very high. However a selection bias must be noted since
managers who were dissatisfied were less likely to remain in the program long enough to complete
the survey on which this result is derived. The perceived advantages of telecommuting (customer
service and productivity) are difficult to quantify, while other more easily quantifiable factors (office
space and parking costs) were not perceived to be advantages. While 39% of the manager
respondents indicated that their organization was likely to offer center-based telecommuting to its
staff, an equal proportion cited lowering the cost, being able to quantify the benefits, and increased
manager acceptance as factors that needed to change before center-based telecommuting was likely
to be offered.
The employee experience with telecommuting centers has been positive. Although no adverse impacts on productivity and job satisfaction have been found, a selection bias is also present here since the attitudinal data were obtained only for employees remaining in the program. Attrition at the telecenters was high: half of the telecenter users quit within nine months. Primary reasons for leaving relate to changes in job circumstances and supervisor desires rather than to employee dissatisfaction with telecommuting centers.
In summary, while transportation and other impacts are unequivocally positive for those who
telecommute as long as they are telecommuting, concerns remain about high attrition among
telecenter users and about the perceived cost-effectiveness of center-based telecommuting to
organizations.
Valuable internal review comments were provided by Michael Bagley, Carol Buckinger, and Ilan
Salomon. Dennis Henderson and Brett Koenig assisted in the creation of the research instruments.
Michelle Derr, Francisca Mar, and Michael Heins coordinated the data collection and cleaning
efforts.
This report was prepared as part of a project sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the California Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Improvement, under
Interagency Agreement No. 60T381/A4. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the views of the FHWA or the State of California.
REPORTS AVAILABLE FROM THE RABO PROJECT
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis 95616
Please click on the corresponding name to view any of these reports.
Note: The two reports from Michael Bagley are contained as a single self-extracting WP 5.1 file.
Bagley, Michael N., Jill S. Mannering and Patricia L. Mokhtarian. Telecommuting Centers and
Related Concepts: A Review of Practice, Summary. UCD-ITS-RR-94-3, March 1994. 61 pp. $10,
or may be downloaded from the Internet free of charge.
Bagley, Michael N., Jill S. Mannering and Patricia L. Mokhtarian. Telecommuting Centers and
Related Concepts: A Review of Practice. UCD-ITS-RR-94-4, March 1994. Approx. 250 pp. $25,
or may be downloaded from the Internet free of charge.
Buckinger, Carol. Telecommuting and Training: Ensuring a Successful Telecommuting Program.
UCD-ITS-RR-94-1. June 1994. 33 pp. $5.
Buckinger, Carol. Picking the Participants: Guidelines for Selecting a Telecommuting Team.
UCD-ITS-RR-94-11. June 1994. 41 pp. $5.
Buckinger, Carol and Patricia Mokhtarian. Status Tracking for Telecenters Participating in the
Residential Area-Based Offices Program. Institute of Transportation Studies. December, 1994. 15
pp.
Ebeler, John and Patricia Mokhtarian. Status Tracking Report*, September, 1995. 32 pp.
Henderson, Dennis and Patricia Mokhtarian. Status Tracking Report*, December 1993. 8 pp.
Henderson, Shirley, Patricia Mokhtarian, and Dennis Henderson. Status Tracking Report*, June
1994 (revised December 1994). 27 pp.
Shirazi, Elham and Carol Nolan. Strategies for Managing Telecommuters: A Telemanager's
Manual. June 1995. 54 pp.
Shirazi, Elham and Carol Nolan. Strategies for Successful Telecommuting: A Telecommuter's
Manual. June 1995. 57 pp.
Stanek, David. Modeling Perceptions and Preference of Home-Based and Center-Based
Telecommuting. Master's Thesis. UCD-ITS-RR-95-12. September 1995. 116 pp. $15.
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DISCLAIMER
REPORTS AVAILABLE FROM THE RABO PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDIX A: SELECTED ATTITUDINAL SURVEY TABULATIONS FOR AFTER EMPLOYEE DATA
APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL TEST RESULTS FOR BEFORE/AFTER COMPARISONS OF EMPLOYEE DATA
APPENDIX C: SELECTED ATTITUDINAL SURVEY TABULATIONS FOR
MANAGER DATA
APPENDIX D: STAYERS AND QUITTERS TABULATIONS AND STATISTICAL
TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX E: "AFTER" TELECOMMUTING CENTER EMPLOYEE SURVEY
APPENDIX F: "AFTER" SURVEY FOR MANAGERS OF TELECOMMUTING
CENTER USERS
APPENDIX G: SIGN-IN LOG
APPENDIX H: TRAVEL DIARY
APPENDIX I: SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
4-1 Occupancy and Usage Rates at RABO Sites
4-2 Occupancy and Usage Rates for the First 10 Months of Operation at RABO Sites
4-3 Usage Rates at Each RABO Site
4-4 Usage Rates at Each Non-RABO Site
4-5 Distribution of Work Time Spent at the Telecenter
4-6 Cumulative Distribution of Work Time Spent at the Telecenter
4-7 Distribution of Workplace Combinations on Telecommuting Days
4-8 Telecommuting Survival Function
4-9 Distribution of Average Telecommuting Frequency
4-10 Cumulative Distribution of Average Telecommuting Frequency
4-11 Telecommuting Frequency Distribution
4-12 Proportion of Telecenter-only Working Days by RABO Telecommuters
4-13 Distribution of Average Work Time at the Telecenter for RABO Telecommuters
4-14 Proportion of Driving Alone to the Telecenter by RABO Telecommuters
5-1 Duration Distribution of Quitters
5-2 Frequency Distribution of Stayers and Quitters
6-1 Three-way Analysis Involving Three Dimensions
6-2 Classification of Person-days by Expected Direct Travel Impacts
6-3 Number of Person-days Distributed by Group and Work Locations
6-4a Time of Day Distribution of Trip Start Times
6-4b Time of Day Distribution of Trip End Times
6-4c Distribution of Trips by Purpose
6-5 Distribution of Non-commute Distance Between Drive Alone and All Other Modes
A-1 Work Environment Characteristics Charts
C-1 Supervisor Work Environment Characteristics Charts
C-2 Selected Supervisor Work Characteristic Attitudes from the Before and After Surveys
2-1 Telecenters Monitored in the Evaluation
3-1 Number of Surveys Received (Pre-12/5/94 Sample)
3-2 Employee Demographic Characteristics
3-3 Employee Education and Household Income
3-4 Employee Job Type and Work Duration
3-5 Employee Work Schedule
3-6 Employee Work Activity Proportions
3-7 Most Important Work Characteristics
3-8 Least Important Work Characteristics
3-9 Employees' Ideal Distribution of Work Time
3-10 Employees' Distribution of Workplace Combinations and Ideal Distribution of Work Time
3-11 Relative Telecommuting Frequency
3-12 Employee Telecommuting Frequency
3-13 Average Distance to Work Locations
3-14 Items or Services Thought to Help Employees Work Effectively at the Telecenter
3-15 Supervisors' Ratings of Their Employees in the After Survey
3-16 Change in Supervisors' Ratings of Their Employees
3-17 One-way ANOVA Results for Supervisors' Attitudes Toward Different Work Environments in the After Survey
3-18 Two-way ANOVA Results for Supervisors' Attitudes Toward Different Work Environments in Both Survey Waves
3-19 Percentage of Supervisors and Organizations With "No Opinion" on Advantages of Telecommuting
3-20 Average Ratings and ANOVA Results for Potential Advantages of Telecommuting in the After Survey
3-21 Supervisors' Distribution of Workplace Combinations and Ideal Distribution of Work Time
3-22 Supervisors' Perception of Employee Telecommuting Frequency
3-23 Mean and Standard Deviation of Telecommuting Frequency Supervisor Responses
3-24 Comparison of Job Performance
3-25 Comparison of Job Satisfaction
3-26 Comparison of ANOVA Results
3-27 Comparison of the Distribution of Workplace Combinations
3-28 Comparison of Relative Telecommuting Frequency
4-1 Data Availability
4-2 Data Availability by Site
4-3 Proportion of Missing Information for Each Site
4-4 Work Time Spent at Each Workplace for Various Combinations at RABO Sites
4-5 Work Time Spent at Each Workplace for Various Combinations at Non-RABO Sites
4-6 Distribution of Workplace Usage by Each Site
4-7 Distribution of Travel Modes for Accessing Each Telecenter
4-8 Estimated Survival Function for RABO Telecommuters
4-9 Estimated Survival Function for Non-RABO Telecommuters
4-10 Average Telecommuting Frequency
4-11 Comparison of Three Measures of Telecommuting Frequency
4-12 Distribution of the Percentage of Telecenter-only Working Days by RABO Telecommuters
5-1 Demographic and Travel Characteristics for Stayers and Quitters
5-2 Work Characteristics for Stayers and Quitters
5-3 Telecommuting Experience and Preference for Stayers and Quitters
5-4 Reasons for Quitting
5-5 Telecommuting Duration
5-6 Telecommuting Frequency of Stayers and Quitters
6-1a Number of Trips, PMT, and VMT by Day Type
6-1b Number of Trips, PMT, and VMT for NW Days and NTC Days Combined
6-2 Cross Tabulation of Person-days According to Study Group and Day Type
6-3 Comparison of Number of Trips, VMT, and PMT on Non-telecommuting Days
6-4 Comparison of the Number of Trips, PMT, and VMT for Telecenter Users on Non-telecommuting and Telecommuting Days
6-5 Comparison of the Number of Trips, PMT, and VMT for Non-telecommuters and Telecenter Users on Telecommuting Days
6-6 Aggregated Trip Start and End Times
6-7 Aggregated Frequency Distribution of Trips by Purpose
6-8 Distribution of the Number of Links in Home-Home Chains for Telecenter Users
6-9 The Impact of Telecommuting on Commute and Non-commute Trips, PMT, and VMT
6-10 Comparison of the Aggregate Number of Trips, PMT, and VMT for Non-telecommuters and Telecenter Users
6-11 Commute Mode Split on Telecommuting and Non-telecommuting Days
6-12 Primary Mode Split by Data Source
6-13 Distance-based Mode Split by Data Source
6-14 Primary Mode Split by Survey Wave
6-15 Distance-based Mode Split by Survey Wave
A-1 Employee Job Performance and Satisfaction Questions
A-2 Employee Work Environment Questions
A-3 Work Environment Characteristics - ANOVA Results
A-4 Employee Work Characteristic Importance Rating
B-1 Relative Telecommuting Frequency Means
B-2 Job Performance and Satisfaction Means
B-3 Work Environment Characteristic Means
C-1 Supervisor Work Environment Questions
D-1 Relative Telecommuting Frequency Means
D-2 Job Performance and Satisfaction Means
D-3 Work Environment Means
D-4 Work Characteristic Importance Rating Means
Return to the Abstracts of Non-Refereed Publications page.
Return to the Telecommunications and Travel Main page.
Return to the Teleworking Reports
page.