Move closer and get active: How to make urban university commutes more satisfying

Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Move closer and get active: How to make urban university commutes more satisfying Robert J. Schneider ⇑, Josie L. Willman University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Urban Planning, 2131 E. Hartford Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 August 2018 Received in revised form 24 September 2018 Accepted 1 November 2018

Keywords: Commuting Travel satisfaction Subjective well-being Active transportation Urban university

a b s t r a c t By making commuting more enjoyable, workplaces, schools, and communities can become more attractive and competitive. We applied quantitative and qualitative methods to explore changes in commute satisfaction reported in the Fall 2017 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) Campus Travel Survey. Among the 2715 respondents who reported satisfaction scores for both their current commute to UWM and their previous commute to a different work or school location, 30% were more satisfied and 47% were less satisfied with their current commute. Binomial logistic regression identified several sociodemographic variables associated with increased satisfaction. In addition, respondents who had a shorter commute to UWM than their previous work or school location were 5.3 times more likely to report increased satisfaction. Respondents who shifted from a motorized mode to walking or bicycling were 2.5 times more likely to be more satisfied. Open-ended responses suggested that satisfaction with active commuting is likely due to benefits such as physical and mental health, social interaction, and being able to express values such as environmental protection and self-reliance. Importantly, active modes avoid the hassle and cost of automobile parking. Urban universities can frame strategies to promote active and sustainable travel modes as a means to support more enjoyable commute options. Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Commuting to and from primary activities such as work and school impacts the quality of people’s lives (Duarte et al., 2010; Abou-Zeid and Ben-Akiva, 2014). On average, US workers spend approximately 52 min per day traveling to and from work (US Census Bureau, 2018). Commuting takes time, exposes people to traffic crash and security risks, and often involves some monetary cost, physical activity, and social interaction. By making commuting more enjoyable, workplaces, schools, and communities can become more attractive and competitive. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), an urban campus with nearly 30,000 students, faculty, and staff, competes for students and employees with other universities throughout the United States and world. The experience of commuting is central to UWM’s future success (UWM, 2015). In this paper, we attempt to overcome several challenges facing research on commute satisfaction. First, reported satisfaction is specific to each individual rather than the population as a whole. How can a researcher know if someone who reports being ‘‘somewhat satisfied” is truly less satisfied than someone else who reports being ‘‘very satisfied” with their ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.J. Schneider), [email protected] (J.L. Willman). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.001 1369-8478/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

463

commute? Researchers have developed multi-variable constructs to create broader representations of satisfaction (Ettema et al., 2011; St-Louis, Manaugh, van Lierop, & El-Geneidy, 2014; De Vos, Schwanen, Van Acker, & Witlox, 2015; De Vos and Witlox, 2017; Handy and Thigpen, 2018; Singleton, 2018), but these still cannot overcome individual-level differences in how personal enjoyment ratings are reported by survey respondents. Other researchers have applied fixed-effects panel regression to control for these differences and other types of variation within and across individuals (Morris and Guerra, 2014). Second, satisfaction with the exact same commute may change over time (Pedersen, Friman, and Kristensen, 2011; Abou-Zeid, Witter, Bierlaire, Kaufmann, & Ben-Akiva, 2012). One reason for this temporal fluctuation is that commute satisfaction may relate to shifting levels of satisfaction with work and other broader aspects of life (Ettema, Gärling, Olsson, & Friman, 2010; De Vos & Witlox, 2017). Another reason is the accumulation of commute and other life experiences over time. Imagine a person who returns to their permanent job after a short-term assignment in a major world city saying, ‘‘My commute here is bad, but at least it is not as bad as traveling to work in Megalopolis.” Our study applies a longitudinal framework to address the challenge of measuring a concept that is relative across individuals and relative over time. Using the Fall 2017 UWM Travel Survey, we explore how individuals’ satisfaction levels change between two different commute experiences. Specifically, we investigate two central research questions: (1) What percentage of respondents are more satisfied with their current commute to the UWM campus than with their previous commute to a different work or school location? (2) What factors are associated with increased commute satisfaction between these two points in time? 2. Literature review Recent research has explored how satisfaction with travel is an important component of people’s subjective well-being, or reported level of happiness, which encompasses feelings ranging from being in a good mood to living a meaningful life. See thorough reviews of this literature by St-Louis et al. (2014), De Vos and Witlox (2017), Singleton (2018). Travel satisfaction itself has been associated with several general categories of factors including trip attributes, attitudes and values, sociodemographic characteristics, and satisfaction with broader aspects of life. Trip characteristics, such as purpose, mode, and distance correspond with travel satisfaction. In general, ‘‘discretionary,” or optional, travel may be more enjoyable than ‘‘mandatory” travel, such as commuting to work (Ory and Mokhtarian, 2009; Morris and Guerra, 2014; Mokhtarian, Papon, Goulard, & Diana, 2015). This may relate to enjoyment of the activity at the end of the trip (De Vos and Witlox, 2017). Active modes (walking and bicycling) are often associated with higher travel satisfaction (LaJeunesse and Rodríguez, 2012; Morris and Guerra, 2014; St-Louis et al., 2014; De Vos, Mokhtarian, Schwanen, Van Acker, & Witlox, 2016; Handy and Thigpen, 2018; Singleton, 2018). Automobile and train satisfaction have shown mixed results (Morris and Guerra, 2014; St-Louis et al., 2014; Handy and Thigpen, 2018), and bus travel is often rated the least enjoyable (Morris and Guerra, 2014; St-Louis et al. 2014). Despite having other advantages, modes that involve operating a vehicle (e.g., automobile driver, bicyclist) rate poorly in terms of the stress component of satisfaction (Singleton, 2018). Travel flexibility has shown mixed results with satisfaction. Having many mode options available may increase satisfaction with standard of living (Makarewicz and Németh, 2018), and ‘‘captive” users of a particular mode may report lower satisfaction (St-Louis et al., 2014). Yet, university commuters who were constrained to a single mode had relatively high levels of satisfaction (Handy and Thigpen, 2018). Handy and Thigpen (2018) suggest that confirmation bias and constrained housing choices may underlie this result. In general, shorter trips are associated with higher satisfaction (Morris and Guerra, 2015; St-Louis et al., 2014; Handy and Thigpen, 2018), but this may depend on trip purpose and personal values (Ory and Mokhtarian, 2009). For example, people who place high value on environmental issues and physical activity may be more satisfied when they have longer-thanaverage walk commutes (Willis, Manaugh, & El-Geneidy, 2013). Travel conditions (e.g., perceived safety from traffic and security from crime; the quality of pedestrian and bicycle facilities) have been associated with walking and automobile satisfaction (Stradling, Anable, and Carreno, 2007) but have not yet provided conclusive results for bicycle satisfaction (Xing, Volker, & Handy, 2018). Several studies have connected personal attitudes and values with travel satisfaction. Intuitively, people who enjoy a particular mode report high satisfaction when using that mode (Mokhtarian et al., 2015; Singleton, 2018). In general, people who perceive that their commute has value beyond simply arriving at a destination have higher levels of satisfaction (StLouis et al., 2014). For example, walk commuters who cite environmental and fitness reasons for walking tend to be more satisfied than other types of walk commuters (Manaugh & El-Geneidy, 2013). Compared to the general population, people with pro-environmental values report lower satisfaction when traveling by automobile (Ory and Mokhtarian, 2009). Travel satisfaction varies with certain sociodemographic characteristics. Older travelers tend to be more satisfied (Archer, Paleti, Konduri, Pendyala, & Bhat, 2013; St-Louis et al., 2014; Mokhtarian et al., 2015). Lower satisfaction levels have been recorded for students (Singleton, 2018; Handy and Thigpen, 2018), people with health problems or disabilities (Mokhtarian et al., 2015; Singleton, 2018), people who hold multiple jobs (Archer et al., 2013), and people with children (Archer et al., 2013). Results for women and people of color have been mixed (Archer et al., 2013; St-Louis et al., 2014; Handy and Thigpen, 2018; Singleton, 2018). Satisfaction with aspects of life beyond travel, such as work achievement and family relationships, may also influence travel satisfaction (Ettema et al., 2010; St-Louis et al., 2014; De Vos, 2017; De Vos and Witlox, 2017). This relationship also

464

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

works in the opposite direction: commute satisfaction may relate to higher overall life satisfaction (Ettema et al., 2010; De Vos and Witlox, 2017), especially among certain groups (Makarewicz and Németh, 2018). Specifically, Singleton (2018) finds that walking and bicycling are positively associated with more personal health and confidence. With a few exceptions (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2011; Abou-Zeid et al., 2012), studies of travel satisfaction have used data from a single time period. This limits our understanding of whether people are more or less satisfied with their current travel relative to previous travel. Our study helps fill this gap by analyzing commute satisfaction at different time periods. However, we use a single measure of satisfaction, so we do not attempt to disentangle the complex components that may underlie reported satisfaction levels. Future studies should explore multi-variate representations of satisfaction at different time periods. 3. Conceptual framework Our study explores change in personal commute satisfaction between two different time periods. Fig. 1 illustrates general categories of factors that may be associated with these changes based on the research described above. Commute satisfaction is one of several domains that are likely to contribute to and be affected by overall life satisfaction. 4. Data and analysis We explored changes in commute satisfaction using responses from the Fall 2017 UWM Campus Travel Survey. This survey gathered information about commuting to UWM, which can be challenging for students, staff, and faculty. The UWM main campus is a major activity hub within Milwaukee, a city of 600,000 and metropolitan region of nearly 2 million residents. The campus is small (0.7 square kilometers), but it serves a university community of nearly 30,000 people. Fewer than 10% of students live on campus, resulting in many off-campus commuters. Further, UWM provides fewer than 3500 oncampus automobile parking spaces (Schneider and Hu, 2015; UWM, 2015). UWM is required by state statute to charge fees (rather than use tuition or other state funds) to recover the approximately $3.5 million per year it spends on parking garage debt service, maintenance, and other parking-related costs, which averages to $1100 annually for each parking space on campus (UWM Parking and Transit 2018). Providing additional automobile parking would be even more costly because it would likely require replacing surface lots with new parking structures (Toor and Havlick, 2004). To address these budget constraints, reduce automobile parking demand, and improve the sustainability of campus commuting, recent campus planning efforts have emphasized the need to improve transit service and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations (UWM, 2015). More information about the UWM campus commuting context is available in other sources (Schneider and Hu, 2015; UWM, 2015). UWM Campus Travel Survey questions covered primary mode of transportation to campus; one-way commute distance; use of different transportation modes throughout the semester; changes in commute habits over time; commute satisfaction; strategies to encourage walk, bicycle, and bus commuting; and sociodemographics. The first commute satisfaction question asked, ‘‘How satisfied are you with your commute to UWM this semester (Fall 2017)?” This was followed by, ‘‘Before you came to UWM, how satisfied were you with your commute to work or school?” (meaning that some undergraduates rated their commute to high school). Responses were given on a 1 (completely dissat-

Life Sasfacon Commute Sasfacon

Previous

Trip Characteriscs Atudes & Values Sociodemographics

Life Sasfacon

Change in Commute Sasfacon

Commute Sasfacon

Current

Trip Characteriscs Atudes & Values Sociodemographics

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework: factors contributing to change in commute satisfaction.

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

465

isfied) to 10 (completely satisfied) scale. Then an open-ended question allowed respondents to provide a brief description of why they may have experienced a change in personal commute satisfaction after arriving at UWM. Messages were sent to all UWM student, faculty, and staff e-mail addresses three times during November 2017 to invite the campus community (29,012 people) to take the survey online. Throughout this period, a total of 4216 unique individuals opened the survey (15% of the campus community). The highest response rate was among staff and the lowest was among students. Because of this, there is a greater chance that the results, particularly for students, might be biased to reflect people who are less time constrained (have more time to take the survey) or have strong opinions about their commute (are more motivated to complete the survey). Of the 4216 raw survey records, 2715 were determined to be complete enough to analyze changes in commute satisfaction. Survey records were not used if people declined to participate, did not answer any questions, or agreed to participate but did not answer enough questions to determine their sociodemographic characteristics, commuting behavior, or commute satisfaction. Fig. 2 summarizes the sociodemographic and commute trip and context characteristics of the 2715 respondents. 1477 respondents were students (54%), 990 were staff (36%), and 248 were faculty (9%). The majority of respondents were women and people younger than age 44. Most respondent households had at least two adults and no children. More respondents lived in households earning less than $50,000 per year than in households earning more than $100,000 per year. Most households had at least two automobiles and at least one bicycle. Most respondents had a longer commute to UWM (median one-way distance of 13 km) than their previous work or school location (median one-way distance of 8 km). Respondents’ UWM commute mode share was 59% private vehicle (or carpool), 22% bus, 9% walk, 6% bicycle, and 5% other. Their previous commutes had higher private vehicle and lower bus mode shares. Many individual respondents changed modes between their previous and current commute. For example, 11% shifted from commuting by a motorized mode (private vehicle, carpool, or bus) prior to UWM to commuting by an active mode (walk or bicycle) to UWM, and 8% did the opposite. Most respondents (84%) commuted by the same mode four or more days per week. Some (29%) were at UWM for at least eight hours on five or more days. A majority of respondents (60%) had been at UWM for fewer than five years. Prior to coming to UWM, most respondents did not live in Milwaukee. The majority (53%) came from communities with fewer than 100,000 people, but 5% commuted in cities with more than 1 million people. Most respondents (87%) came from the Midwest US, but more than 20 each were previously from the South, West, and East/Northeast US, Europe, and Mainland Asia. We developed a series of binary logistic regression models to identify characteristics that were associated with higher levels of satisfaction commuting to UWM than commuting to the previous school or workplace. The binary logistic regression model is specified as:

  Pðxi Þ g ðX Þ ¼ Ln ¼ b0 þ b1 X 1i þ b2 X 2i þ    þ bk X ki þ ei 1  Pðxi Þ

ð1Þ

where Pðxi Þ is the probability of any of the i = 2715 respondents reporting higher commute satisfaction at UWM, X ki is a vector representing the k-th explanatory variables (e.g., sociodemographic variables and commute trip and context variables) for the i-th respondent, bk is a vector of parameters that express the relationship between each explanatory variable in X ki and the probability of reporting higher commute satisfaction at UWM, and ei is the error term. We estimated the parameters bk using maximum likelihood estimation. We also analyzed why respondents said their commute satisfaction changed. A majority of respondents provided openended explanations, including 60% of the 822 people who reported increased satisfaction and 63% of the 1263 people who reported decreased satisfaction. Even 12% of the 630 people who reported the same satisfaction level provided explanations. Many of these respondents elaborated because some aspects of their commute improved but others worsened at UWM. Our qualitative process identified general themes that were common across multiple responses. We established 10 themes among the 1367 open-ended responses (some comments applied to multiple themes): (1) Time/Distance/Effort (mentioned in 49% of responses), (2) Parking Availability/Cost (32%), (3) Traffic/Congestion/Urban Activity Levels (17%), (4) Transportation Facilities/Service Quality (12%), (5) Positive Externalities (e.g., physical and mental health, social, environmental) (12%), (6) Preference for a Particular Mode (11%), (7) Scheduling/Flexibility/Reliability (10%), (8) Weather/Climate (4%), (9) Security from Crime (3%), and (10) Safety from Traffic Crashes/Behavior of Other Roadway Users (3%). We initially looked for evidence of habit, but this was rarely mentioned (even though it is likely to be an important subconscious factor influencing commute mode choice and satisfaction). An important consideration when using reported satisfaction data is that perceptions of satisfaction with the same travel experience may change over time. For example, when asked two years later, people remembered a lower level of satisfaction with public transit than they reported at the time they were taking it (Pedersen et al., 2011). Habitual automobile commuters reported an elevated level of satisfaction with commuting by car immediately after a temporary experience commuting by public transit, but their automobile commute satisfaction returned to normal levels several months later (Abou-Zeid et al., 2012). However, an analysis of the UC Davis Campus Travel Surveys did not show a clear degradation of recall accuracy for attitudes toward bicycling within four to five years, suggesting that asking respondents to recall prior satisfaction levels may not be a serious issue, though more research is needed (Thigpen, 2018). We tried to minimize this issue by focusing our main analysis on a simple increase in satisfaction rather than trying to quantify incremental changes using our 10-point satisfac-

466

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

Fig. 2. Characteristics of survey respondents by change in commute satisfaction. Notes: (1) Increased commute satisfaction means that reported satisfaction with commuting to UWM was higher than reported satisfaction with commuting to the previous work or school location. (2) The total number of responses in some categories does not sum to 2715 due to non-response to a particular question, not including all possible options, or overlap among categories (e.g., prior commute region = all countries outside the US versus European countries outside the US). (3) ‘‘Other” gender included respondents with other gender identities as well as non-responses. (4) We did not differentiate between small cities that are suburbs within large metropolitan regions, small cities at the center of small metropolitan regions, or small cities in rural areas.

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

467

tion scale. Further, our survey structure established the current commute satisfaction level as a reference point. Respondents indicated their previous commute satisfaction level almost immediately after rating their current commute. This allowed us to make as clean of a comparison as possible between the two commute experiences. Further, it is possible that some respondents did not report their true commute satisfaction level on the survey. For example, some respondents could have attempted to influence UWM policy decisions by reporting a lower satisfaction level with their current commute than they actually experienced. A lower level of satisfaction might indicate a desire for improvements to campus administrators. If this occurred, our results would reflect a more conservative estimate of the number of people who experienced increased satisfaction and a more conservative estimate of the factors associated with increased satisfaction. Additionally, respondents may have adjusted their satisfaction ratings to reflect what they felt was socially acceptable or what they thought survey administrators would want to hear, potentially inflating satisfaction ratings for more environmentally-friendly modes like walking and bicycling. It would be extremely difficult to determine if these possible biases were present. 5. Results Overall, 30% of the 2715 respondents were more satisfied with their current commute to UWM than their previous commute to a different work or school location. More respondents (47%) reported decreased satisfaction, and 23% reported no change (Fig. 2). According to Fig. 2, several sociodemographic and commute trip and context variables appear to be related to increased commute satisfaction. For example, faculty and older respondents tended to be more satisfied with commuting to UWM than with their previous commutes. People with shorter commutes, who previously commuted in a city with more than 1 million people, and who shifted from a motorized to an active transportation mode were generally more satisfied. However, these single-variable descriptive statistics are unable to control for the combined influence of multiple variables. Table 1 presents two binomial logistic models showing the relationship between different combinations of variables and increased commute satisfaction. The Preliminary Model (left) included all available variables considered to have a theoretical relationship with commute satisfaction. After estimating our Preliminary Model, we removed different combinations of variables that were not significant at the 95% confidence level and re-estimated many iterations of other models. We arrived at the Refined Model (right) only after seeing that its variables were consistently significant at the 95% confidence level across many models. We discuss statistically-significant results in the sections below. Note that our 1–10 satisfaction scale could have constrained a few respondents from potentially indicating that they were more satisfied with their UWM commute than their previous commute. Nine respondents reported a satisfaction score of 1 for both their current and previous commute, so some of them could have wanted to indicate a score lower than 1 for their previous commute, but this option was not available. We also estimated our models without these nine responses and found nearly identical results. 5.1. Sociodemographic characteristics The Refined Model shows that respondents who were more likely to report higher satisfaction with their commute to UWM than their previous commute included people who are currently 45 years and older and people currently in households with at least one automobile. Respondents who are students, female, and in lower-income households were less likely to report increased satisfaction with their current UWM commute. Older age groups may include larger shares of people with more seniority at UWM, meaning that they may have better access to automobile parking permits. Female respondents may be less satisfied due to concerns about personal safety and security (Loukaitou-Sideris & Fink, 2009; St-Louis et al., 2014) or having more household responsibilities than male respondents (Taylor, Ralph, & Smart, 2015; Handy & Thigpen, 2018). The female variable may also be picking up the effect of household children in the Refined Model. Most people 45 years and older are staff and faculty who tend to have typical work hours and consistent morning and evening commute times, which may reduce day-to-day uncertainty with commute attributes such as parking availability, traffic congestion, and bus reliability. They may also be able to compare their UWM commute to more difficult commute experiences throughout life than younger respondents. In contrast, students may have more day-to-day uncertainty when commuting, and are likely to have fewer lifetime commute experiences for comparison. Respondents in households with automobiles may be more satisfied with their UWM commute because they are more likely to have the option of commuting by car, even if they do not choose this mode every day. Other current household characteristics, including number of adults, number of children, and number of bicycles did not have a significant association with increased commute satisfaction. Annual household income was negatively associated with commute satisfaction, possibly due to respondents with lower incomes having a harder time paying for parking and bus fares, but it was just beyond the 95% significance threshold in our series of models. Future studies of changes in commute satisfaction should gather additional respondent characteristics corresponding to earlier time periods. Due to the constraints of our survey, we did not have variables for automobile ownership and household characteristics corresponding with the respondents’ previous commutes, so we were unable to analyze the possible influence of changes in these variables on commute satisfaction.

468

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473 Table 1 Binomial logistic models of increased commute satisfaction. Preliminary model

Constant Sociodemographic variables University role Student Staff Faculty Gender Female Male Other3

Refined model

Exp(B)1

Sig2

Exp(B)1

Sig2

0.010

**

0.045

**

0.644 1.103

*

0.663

**

0.817

*

* *

1.416 1.868

** *

** **

1.994 1.760

** **

0.819 1.095

Age 18–24 25–44 45–64 65+

1.013 1.425 1.792

Household adults 1 2+

0.971

Household children 0 1+

1.235

Household annual income <$25 K >$150 K

1.301 1.117

Household number of automobiles 0 1 2+

2.058 1.853

Household number of bicycles 0 1+

0.949

Commute trip and context variables Change in commute distance Longer Shorter

5.319

**

5.308

**

UWM primary commute mode Private vehicle/carpool Bus Walk Bicycle Other

2.232 1.146 1.189 1.363

**

2.118

**

Previous primary commute mode Private vehicle/carpool Bus Walk Bicycle Other

1.840 1.250 0.778 0.711

**

1.819

**

Mode change Motorized before to Active at UWM

2.508

**

2.648

**

Habit Use same mode at UWM 4 + days per week

1.068

Time spent on campus <4 h 5+ days per week >8 h 5+ days per week

1.340 0.882

Years at UWM <1.0 1.0–4.9 5.0+

1.110 1.217

**

469

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473 Table 1 (continued) Preliminary model

Refined model

Exp(B)1

Sig2

Exp(B)1

Sig2

Prior commute city size <100,000 people4 >1 million people

0.754 1.245

**

0.749

**

Prior commute region US midwest US South US West US East/Northeast Outside US: Europe Outside US: Mainland Asia

1.181 1.047 1.471 0.456 1.331

Sample size Model -2 Log likelihood Model AIC

2715 2522 2596

2715 843 867

1 Values of Exp(B) above 1 indicate that the variable is associated with a higher reported satisfaction with commuting to UWM than commuting to the previous work or school location. Values below 1 indicate that the variable is associated with lower reported satisfaction with commuting to UWM than commuting to the previous work or school location. The value of Exp (B) for a particular variable category represents the likelihood of increased satisfaction for respondents with that particular characteristic relative to all other respondents who did not have the specified characteristic (except for those who are represented by other categories of that variable included in the model). Blank cells indicate that a particular variable category was not estimated in the model. For example, in the Preliminary Model, the values for student and staff respondents are relative to the reference category of faculty respondents. 2 * indicates parameter estimate is significant at 95% confidence level; ** indicates parameter estimate is significant at 99% confidence level. 3 ‘‘Other” gender included respondents with other gender identities as well as non-responses. 4 We did not differentiate between small cities that are suburbs within large metropolitan regions, small cities at the center of small metropolitan regions or small cities in rural areas.

5.2. Commute distance and context The variable with the largest impact on increased satisfaction was commute distance. The Refined Model shows that respondents with shorter commutes to UWM than to their previous work or school location were 5.3 times more likely than others to report increased commute satisfaction. Shorter commutes take less time and are likely to have multiple convenient commute mode options available. People who had previously commuted in a community with fewer than 100,000 residents were less likely to report higher satisfaction with their UWM commute. This is likely due to smaller communities having less crowded conditions, meaning lower levels of traffic congestion, more automobile parking available, and possibly streets that are more comfortable for walking and bicycling. Putting this in the context of UWM, many of the respondents who came from smaller communities had previously lived in another part of Wisconsin, so their negative perception of commuting in Milwaukee may reflect their first experience in a larger city. Several respondents made open-ended comments similar to this student from a small city in Northern Wisconsin: ‘‘Came from a small town. Lots more traffic here and less places to park.” 5.3. Commute mode Shifting from a motorized mode to an active travel mode had the second-largest association with increased commute satisfaction. People who walked or bicycled to UWM after driving or taking the bus to their previous work or school location were more than 2.5 times as likely to report increased satisfaction. Since the model controls for change in distance, this result suggests that walking and bicycling are also preferred for other reasons besides tending to be shorter commutes. The relationship between travel mode and commute satisfaction was worth additional exploration. We compared the percentage of respondents who reported increased satisfaction for a specific combination of modes with the percentage of all other respondents who reported increased satisfaction (Table 2). For example, only 21% of 1277 people who used a private automobile for both their previous and current UWM commute reported higher satisfaction with their UWM commute. Among the other 1438 respondents, 38% reported higher satisfaction. This difference is 17% (and is significant at the 99% confidence level according to a z-test of proportions). Therefore, private vehicle commuting appears to be relatively worse at UWM than in previous locations. As cells on the diagonal of the table represent people who did not change modes, bus commuting appears to be relatively better at UWM than in previous locations. Specific mode shifts showed significant increases in satisfaction. Many people who had previously commuted by automobile but now commute to UWM by walk, bicycle, or bus were more satisfied. The opposite was true for people who had previously commuted by walk or bicycle but now commute to UWM by automobile. Many previous bus commuters increased their satisfaction by shifting to walk or bicycle commuting at UWM.

470

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

Table 2 Relative levels of increased satisfaction with specific mode shift combinations. UWM commute mode

Previous commute mode

Private vehicle Bus Walk Bicycle Other Total

Private vehicle

Bus

Walk

Bicycle

Other

Total

17%** 6% 16%** 17%* 15%** 22%**

11%** 10%* 3% 21% 13% 10%**

29%** 39%** 0% 36% 32%** 29%**

31%** 48%** 14% 3% 10% 22%**

1% 20% 16% 36% 14% 0%

3% 16%** 8%* 7% 2% N/A

Cell values are the difference between the percent of respondents who reported increased satisfaction for a specific combination of modes with the percent of all other respondents who reported increased satisfaction. Asterisks indicate the results of a two-tailed z-test of proportions. This test compares the proportion of respondents who shifted according to the combination of modes in a particular cell and reported increased satisfaction with the proportion of all other respondents who reported increased satisfaction. * indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level. ** indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 99% confidence level.

We also tested a variety of interaction terms during the modeling process (these models are not included in Table 2). One statistically-significant result showed that both male and female respondents had a higher likelihood of reporting increased satisfaction when they shifted from motorized to active commuting, but this relationship was stronger for male respondents. A close review of the data suggested that this gender difference was likely due to more male UWM walk commuters reporting increased satisfaction than female UWM walk commuters. There was little gender difference in increased satisfaction for UWM bicycle commuters. Since few studies show gender differences in walking for transportation purposes (Pollard and Wagnild, 2017), this finding should be viewed cautiously but warrants additional exploration. Open-ended responses suggest that walking and bicycling are more satisfying than using a personal automobile due to key travel characteristics: they avoid the hassle of traffic and cost of parking (Table 3). Respondent comments also revealed several other important benefits of active commuting related to attitudes and values. Respondents perceived walking and bicycling to be good for personal physical and mental health, likely generating positive attitudes towards these modes. Further, walking and bicycling may allow people to live according to personal values such as environmental protection and selfreliance. Interestingly, both the set of respondents who commuted by bus previously and the set of respondents who currently take the bus to UWM reported higher satisfaction levels with their current commute (Tables 1 and 2). Not having to depend on the bus anymore could be a possible explanation for increased satisfaction among previous bus commuters. People who currently commute by bus may also be more satisfied than before because the Milwaukee County Transit System generally provides a high quality of service to UWM commuters. Additionally, the bus may provide relief from the stress of private Table 3 Comments explaining increased satisfaction with active commuting. Comments related to commute trip characteristics  ‘‘I am more satisfied because I prefer walking; additionally, I no longer have to rely on fighting traffic to get to work or finding a place to park when I arrive.” (UWM staff walk commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘I no longer have to deal with driving & parking.” (UWM staff walk commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘More satisfied now, can walk, don’t have to worry about parking.” (UWM student walk commuter; previous carpool commuter)  ‘‘When commuting by car, parking was an expensive nightmare. Now that I commute by bike, I feel better, don’t have the parking hassle, and save money.” (UWM faculty bicycle commuter; previous private automobile commuter) Comments related to attitudes and values  ‘‘Being able to walk or bike to work is a wonderful option, and good for both the body & mind.” (UWM faculty walk commuter; previous personal automobile commuter)  ‘‘I much prefer biking to driving, for both my physical and mental health.” (UWM staff bicycle commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘I don’t have to fill up with gas nearly as much and my biking commute gets me outside and exercising on a regular basis.” (UWM student bicycle commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘I hate having to drive to work and / or school. Rush hour traffic is terrible. Being able to walk or ride my bike is amazing and I love it. It gives me time outside to decompress from a work day and prepare for class time.” (UWM student bicycle commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘I am more satisfied because biking is more fun than driving.” (UWM student bicycle commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘[My previous commute] was highway driving. I enjoy walking better because it’s healthier.” (UWM staff walk commuter; previous personal automobile commuter)  ‘‘I ride my bike more now, which is more convenient, less expensive, and better for my health.” (UWM staff bicycle commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘I like that my commute is shorter now and I can walk to campus which helps save the environment and I spend less money on gas.” (UWM student walk commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘I like being able to rely on my own form of transportation. Being able to walk to class is really nice.” (UWM student walk commuter; previous bus commuter)  ‘‘I enjoy being within walking distance of the campus, whereas I wasn’t before and relied on a bus to get to campus.” (UWM student walk commuter; previous bus commuter)

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

471

Table 4 Comments explaining decreased satisfaction due to automobile parking. Comments describing expectations for free and available automobile parking  ‘‘All the other jobs I have had, including when I worked downtown Milwaukee, provided free parking for employees.” (UWM staff personal automobile commuter; previous personal automobile commuter)  ‘‘Because it was shorter, less traffic to deal [with], was able to go home for lunch, last but by no means least, FREE PARKING ON THE EMPLOYERS PROPERTY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY YOUR EMPLOYER TO PARK ON THEIR PROPERTY!!!” (UWM staff personal automobile commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘Parking on campus is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive!!!!! There are no reasons for the prices to be this high now that campus owns the NWQ parking structure.” (UWM staff personal automobile commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘We need free parking!!!!. . .build a 5 story parking garage free. Where does my tuition money go??” (UWM student personal automobile commuter; previous personal automobile commuter)  ‘‘My level of satisfaction decreased with my commute to UWM, the lack of parking adds extra stress & time to get to class, parking should be the last of any student (esp. commuter) concern, how can I do well in class if I’m late getting there!” (UWM student shuttle commuter; previous private automobile commuter)  ‘‘Parking Is GARBAGE for commuters, people who live a block from campus commute on rainy or snowy days & take all the spots.” (UWM student personal automobile commuter; previous personal automobile commuter)  ‘‘Parking works against student success.” (UWM student personal automobile commuter; previous personal automobile commuter)  ‘‘Before I came to UWM I was able to live within walking distance from the campus I was on (UW-Madison). This was preferable mainly because I didn’t have to park a car. The problem with the commute to Milwaukee’s campus is the parking.” (UWM staff private automobile commuter; previous walk commuter) Comments describing automobile parking involving tradeoffs with family, work, and housing constraints  ‘‘Since I had to purchase housing farther away due to high housing rates, I encountered further costs due to the commuting & parking rates. It is a lose-lose situation for people with vehicles; it feels as if we are being punished for having vehicles, especially considering how much we pay in tuition.” (UWM student private automobile commuter; previous bus commuter)  ‘‘I’d prefer a shorter commute, but cannot afford to live closer to UWM.” (UWM faculty private automobile commuter; previous transit commuter)  ‘‘I am a graduate student with children, so I needed to live further from campus in order to find affordable housing with good schools that is also close to my spouse’s place of employment. Commuting by car & finding parking is not nearly as convenient as being able to bike to school when I was able to live closer to campus.” (UWM student private automobile commuter; previous bicycle commuter)  ‘‘I live so far from work because I don’t want to live in the city where apartments are expensive & dirty.” (UWM staff private automobile commuter; previous carpool commuter)  ‘‘I just hate having a car & needing to drive. I could take the bus, but that’s a solid hour from Bayview. I chose my location though. . .” (UWM student private automobile commuter; previous bus commuter)

automobile commuting to UWM, as suggested by this open-ended student comment: ‘‘The bus relieves the stress and expense of finding parking every day. I can relax and not worry about traffic. It’s part of a routine.” 5.4. Automobile parking The UWM survey did not include any questions that addressed automobile parking explicitly. However, after commute distance and time (mentioned in 49% of open-ended comments), automobile parking availability and cost was the most common theme explaining changes in commute satisfaction (mentioned in 32% of open-ended comments). Current automobile commuters cited parking as their top reason for decreased satisfaction. Respondents who had shifted to other modes often mentioned avoiding automobile parking as a primary reason for increased satisfaction. Automobile parking concerns are an important aspect of understanding commute satisfaction change. Many respondents are accustomed to having free and readily-available automobile parking (Table 4). For some respondents, UWM is their first experience commuting to an activity center with scarce automobile parking. Therefore, its limited supply and relatively high cost were a source of commute frustration (within the metropolitan region, only Downtown Milwaukee has comparable onstreet and off-street parking rates). Other responses were more nuanced: automobile parking at UWM is a complex challenge involving balancing family responsibilities, work responsibilities, and housing constraints. 6. Discussion UWM is a dense campus with limited automobile parking located within an urban area, so it may not be surprising that commutes by walking and bicycling are more satisfying than driving. For many campus commuters, walking and bicycling have lower out-of-pocket costs and are time-competitive with motorized commute modes. Still, our study focused on the change in satisfaction relative to a previous commute. After controlling for commute distance (suggesting that shorter commutes are strongly preferred) and other sociodemographic and contextual factors, shifting from a motorized mode to walking or bicycling was associated with increased satisfaction. In other words, the higher satisfaction associated with active modes is not simply due to commuting for shorter distances. This enjoyment is likely due to other benefits to physical and mental health, social interaction, or commuting as an expression of personal values. Importantly, we collected commute satisfaction data from one specific urban university. Results apply to UWM and may also apply to campuses in similar urban contexts. Campuses situated differently within metropolitan regions (e.g., with

472

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

different automobile parking, nearby housing, or roadway design characteristics) may have different commute satisfaction responses. Beyond the built environment, there could also be variation in commute satisfaction due to differences in efforts to encourage sustainable transportation, cultural norms, and climate at the metropolitan level or differences in the sociodemographic makeup of a campus community (influenced by the mission and academic specialties of the university). Our results from UWM suggest that similar urban campuses seeking to increase active and sustainable commuting can frame mode shift strategies as a means to support more enjoyable commute options. Actions to limit supply or increase the cost of automobile parking, create slower-speed environments with safer pedestrian and bicycle crossings, or provide more street space for dedicated bicycle facilities can help shift commuters from modes that are less satisfying to modes that are more satisfying. Programs can also promote walk, bicycle, and bus commuting, such as providing commute ambassadors to help show individuals how to take the bus or find a bicycle route to campus. These encouragement efforts may be particularly beneficial for expanding awareness among people who have previously only commuted by automobile. Longterm strategies involve increasing housing supply near campus, including low-rent units for students and employees with relatively low wages. This would allow more people to live within easy walking and bicycling distance. Affordable housing could also be located near and coordinated with the development of high-frequency, rapid transit lines. Still, it is important to consider accommodations for some campus affiliates for whom driving is the only practical choice. People with lower incomes who have clearly-demonstrated personal, family, and work constraints requiring them to drive could be given options to apply for guaranteed, reduced cost parking. Subsidized transit passes could also be offered to all campus patrons, potentially with larger subsidies for people with greater need. Universities in constrained urban environments and with strong sustainability goals should communicate parking policy clearly. Otherwise, campus automobile commuters may not understand why universities are not taking more action to improve conditions for driving. According to one student, ‘‘I already spend enough money on tuition, books, courses, etc. to attend this school, it would be nice if I could park somewhere for free. I attended school here when students could park for free at [one parking garage]. I don’t understand why that was taken away from us.” Campus patrons may be more understanding (and possibly more satisfied with their commute) if they knew that UWM is required by state statute to charge parking fees (rather than use tuition or other state funds) to recover the $1100 it spends per parking space per year (UWM Parking and Transit, 2018). Providing additional parking spaces would likely require constructing new garages, creating an even higher cost per space. Instituting free parking would also undermine sustainability efforts. Subsidizing personal automobile commuting would incentivize some walk, bicycle, and bus commuters to drive. This would increase parking demand and traffic congestion. More automobiles on streets and entering and exiting parking lots would further reduce the safety of walk and bicycle commuters, likely decreasing their satisfaction. For a thorough discussion of campus parking costs, space requirements, and policies as well as other marketing, education, and travel demand management strategies to increase sustainable campus commuting, see Toor and Havlick (2004). Our conceptual framework suggests that broader life satisfaction and personal attitudes and values are likely to play a role in commute satisfaction reported by survey respondents. As one UWM student explained, ‘‘I am more satisfied now because I am going someplace I enjoy.” We provided some insights into these factors through our analysis of open-ended responses, but additional work is needed to explore other potential influences on commute satisfaction. Specifically, future surveys should include questions that make it possible to quantify the positive impacts of variables such as personal health and self-reliance on changes in commute satisfaction. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Katherine Nelson and John Gardner of the UWM Office of Sustainability for their support of the UWM Campus Travel Survey and this study. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.001. References Abou-Zeid, M., Witter, R., Bierlaire, M., Kaufmann, V., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2012). Happiness and travel mode switching: Findings from a Swiss public transportation experiment. Transport Policy, 19, 93–104. Archer, M., Paleti, R., Konduri, K., Pendyala, R., & Bhat, C. (2013). Modeling the connection between activity-travel patterns and subjective well-being. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2382, 102–111. Abou-Zeid, M., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2014). Satisfaction and travel choices. In T. Gärling, D. Ettema, & M. Friman (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Travel (pp. 53–65). Dordrecht: Springer. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2015). How satisfying is the Scale for Travel Satisfaction? Transportation Research Part F, 29, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.01.007. De Vos, J., Mokhtarian, P. L., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2016). Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: Bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility. Transportation, 43, 771–796. De Vos, J. (2017). Analysing the effect of trip satisfaction on satisfaction with the leisure activity at the destination of the trip, in relationship with life satisfaction. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9812-0.

R.J. Schneider, J.L. Willman / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 462–473

473

De Vos, J., & Witlox, F. (2017). Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behaviour process. Transportation Research Part A, 106, 364–373. Duarte, A., Garcia, C., Giannarakis, G., Limão, S., Polydoropoulou, A., & Litinas, N. (2010). New approaches in transportation planning: Happiness and transport economics. NETNOMICS, 11, 5–32. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L. E., & Friman, M. (2010). Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transportation Research Part A, 44(9), 723–732. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Olsson, L. E., & Fujii, S. (2011). Satisfaction with travel and subjective well-being: Development and test of a measurement tool. Transportation Research Part F, 14(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2010.11.002. Handy, S. L., & Thigpen, C. (2018). Commute quality and its implications for commute satisfaction: exploring the role of mode, location, and other factors. Travel Behavior and Society. in press. LaJeunesse, S., & Rodríguez, D. A. (2012). Mindfulness, time affluence, and journey-based affect: exploring relationships. Transportation Research Part F, 15 (2), 196–205. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Fink, C. (2009). Addressing women’s fear of victimization in transportation settings: A survey of U.S. transit agencies. Urban Affairs Review, 44(4), 554–587. Makarewicz, C., & Németh, J. (2018). Are multimodal travelers more satisfied with their lives? A study of accessibility and wellbeing in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Cities, 74, 179–187. Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2013). Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transportation Research Part A, 50, 198–208. Mokhtarian, P. L., Papon, F., Goulard, M., & Diana, M. (2015). What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French National Travel Survey. Transportation, 42(6), 1103–1128. Morris, E. A., & Guerra, E. (2014). Mood and mode: Does how we travel affect how we feel? Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9521. Morris, E. A., & Guerra, E. (2015). Are we there yet? Trip duration and mood during travel. Transportation Research Part F, 33, 38–47. Ory, D. T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2009). Modeling the structural relationships among short-distance travel amounts, perceptions, affections, and desires. Transportation Research Part A, 43, 26–43. Pedersen, T., Friman, M., & Kristensen, P. (2011). The role of predicted, on-line experienced and remembered satisfaction in current choice to use public transport services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18, 471–475. Pollard, T. M., & Wagnild, J. M. (2017). Gender differences in walking (for leisure, transport and in total) across adult life: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 17, 341. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4253-4. Schneider, R. J., & Hu, L. (2015). Improving university transportation sustainability: Reducing barriers to campus bus and bicycle commuting. The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, 11(1), 2325–11166. Singleton, P. A. (2018). Walking (and cycling) to well-being: Modal and other determinants of subjective well-being during the commute. Travel Behavior and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.02.005. Stradling, S. G., Anable, J., & Carreno, M. (2007). Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes. Transportation Research Part A, 41, 98–106. St-Louis, E., Manaugh, K., van Lierop, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2014). The happy commuter: A comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes. Transportation Research Part F, 26, 160–170. Taylor, B. D., Ralph, K., & Smart, M. (2015). What explains the gender gap in schlepping? Testing various explanations for gender differences in householdserving travel. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1493–1510. Thigpen, C. (2018). Measurement validity of retrospective survey questions of bicycling behavior, attitudes, and skills. Presented at Transportation Research Board annual meeting, Washington, DC. Toor, W., & Havlick, S. W. (2004). Transportation & sustainable campus communities: Issues, examples, solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) (2015). UWM transportation and parking study. Accessed June 11, 2018. https://panthers.sharepoint.com/sites/ CPM/Shared%20Documents/Website/Useful%20Links%20%26%20Documents/UW-Milwaukee_Parking_-_Transportation_Study_2013-2015-FINAL150616.pdf?slrid=f92f709e-b0a5-5000-f776-54124e6a3e2f. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) Parking and Transit (2018). Personal e-mail correspondence on July 19, 2018. US Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2012–2016 Accessed June 11, 2018, https://factfinder.census.gov. Willis, D. P., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2013). Uniquely satisfied: Exploring cyclist satisfaction. Transportation Research Part F, 18, 136–147. Xing, Y., Volker, J., & Handy, S. (2018). Why do people like bicycling? Modeling affect toward bicycling. Transportation Research Part F, 56, 22–32.