Category: Travel

_{The Coronavirus crisis will probably change the way we travel if you’re wondering what your vacation might look like after all this is over. Here are our seven quick tips on how to plan your trip during the quarantine.} 

Number seven, prepare multiple destination options for your next trip. Start with creating a travel bucket list and choose multiple destinations based on your preferences. Watch YouTube videos, read blogs, watch documentaries on the possible destinations you want to visit, etc. 

When you’re making a list, make them based on the factors such as how healthy or risky the country you’re planning to visit is. Keep on checking the WHO website, the Coronavirus tracker and life updates, see which countries have the best preventive measures, etc. If you’re unsure, explore less crowded destinations. Places such as nature, less crowded towns, and cities visit to a national park will be such example check if there is enough medical infrastructure in the place or in the region you’re traveling to if you get sick while you’re there. 

Number six, Book your trip with possible cancellation options. Book your accommodation so that you can easily cancel to eliminate unnecessary cancellation fees. Always look at what the cancellation policy for your recommendation right or flight is. It might not always be easy to find the cancellation conditions, so take some time and read the fine print. You can even consider purchasing to read cancellation insurance to watch for the best value and not necessarily the lowest prices after the best crisis. 

Many hotels offered a great price-quality ratio and packages for tourists to get them traveling again. But be careful when booking, especially with unknown operators, and watch out for scams. If you choose a well-known brand, such as hotels, booking providers, or airlines, the chances of going bankrupt are lower. Also, don’t forget to get the right travel health insurance. 

Number five, plan to travel closer to your home plan shorter trips so you can easily get back home. You can even take several shorter trips more often; instead of making one big trip, take advantage of long weekends and holidays to travel to neighboring states or countries. So you’re always able to come home fast by car or a very short flight at most. 

Number four, do not plan way ahead. Why is it not so good to plan that far ahead? Well, maybe in the summer, the Coronavirus situation improves, but then it might hit hard again, as SARS did. Nobody knows what will happen. That’s why it’s great to have several options ready, including several possible dates. 

Number three, stay healthy. It would be best if you are strong and healthy for your next travel. So eat healthily, take vitamins, drink enough, sleep well, exercise, and practice mental strength. 

Number two, take precautions while traveling after this is over. Here’s what you can do to stay safe and healthy during your travels. Always wash your hands properly every time you have a chance to, for example, after using a toilet, but be careful not to touch the doors after leaving the restaurant. Bring hand sanitizers and wipes. Use them every time you touch something. For example, right after touching handrails, doors surfaces on the metro elevator buttons before you eat outside, etc. 

Remember that many people have just touched that elevator button right before you, and viruses can stay on the surfaces for days. Use wipes to sanitize surfaces that you’re about to use. Don’t touch your face. One of the main ways the virus spreads is when you touch your nose, eyes, or mouth, use tissues or your sleeve when coughing and wear a mask, especially indoors and when you’re close to other people. 

Don’t sit down while using the metro and try to use the metro without holding them, just as some locals do. But be careful, we don’t want you to fall, of course, either the restaurants, fast food joints and food centers that have good reviews chances are they are way cleaner stay healthy. 

Eat well, drink enough and take vitamins also during your travel and get enough sleep. Also, know what the emergency number is for your destination. 

Number one, don’t rush into taking your first vacation. Wait until the authorities say it’s safe to go, and then revisit your travel plan. If you’ve made a long enough list with many options, you will probably find a great place to visit.

by Leighton Walter Kille, The Journalist’s Resource
January 15, 2013

---

If you’re an American and commuted to work today, the odds are that you drove there alone. According to a 2011 Census Bureau report, in 2009 more than three-quarters of all commuters were in single-occupancy vehicles — that’s 105 million cars, one by one down the highway. While the ongoing financial crisis has pushed more commuters to save money by carpooling and using public transit, the vast majority continue to drive alone. In 2009 the average travel time was just over 25 minutes, meaning that nearly an hour of every workday was spent in a car.

The same year, 5% of commuters in the United States used public transportation, 2.9% walked to work and 0.6% rode bikes. While these figures may seem minor in the overall picture, in dense cities with the appropriate infrastructure, non-automotive modes can contribute significantly to mobility: 30% of residents in the New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island metropolitan area get to work by mass transit, while 15% of those in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Fremont area do. Nearly 10% of Corvallis, Ore., residents bike to work, while 15% of those in Ithaca, N.Y., choose to walk.

Of course, transit infrastructure is frequently not in place to help people get to their place of employment. A 2011 Brookings Institution report found that only 30% of jobs in metropolitan areas can be reached by transit within 90 minutes. Access varies significantly, from 60% in Honolulu to 7% in Palm Bay, Florida; Washington and New York average 37%. The report also highlighted some inequalities: About 33% of high-skill jobs can be accessed by transit within 90 minutes, compared to 25% of low- and middle-skill jobs.

According to a report by the Center for Housing Policy, U.S. working families spend 29% of their income on transportation — more than $9,800 on average. Those living in dense cities with extensive mass transit systems tended to have lower transportation costs (New Yorkers paid $7,880, nearly 20% less than the average) while those in cities that sprawl have higher costs (Atlantans spent $10,890, 11% more than the average). More driving also increases a city’s per-capita carbon footprint: In New York, residents are responsible for 1.9 metric tons of carbon per year; in Los Angeles, the figure is 3.68 — nearly double.

One factor influencing individuals’ choices is free parking at work, and research has shown that the option of “cashing out” can significantly increase rates of carpooling and other alternate transportation modes. Other subsidies for driving are hidden in the tax code: Up until this year, those who commuted by car could deduct $240 for parking costs; mass transit users only got $125. That imbalance was rectified in the “fiscal cliff” bill approved New Year’s Day 2013.

Below is a selection of recent research on issues related to the major commuting modes, including  cars, transit, bicycles and walking.

______

“Commuting in the United States: 2009”
United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey Reports, September 2011.

Summary: “Commuting in the United States is dominated by private automobile travel, as is evidenced by the large proportion (86.1 percent) of workers 16 years and over who commuted by car, truck, or van in 2009. About three-quarters of workers drove to work alone in that year. The dominance of the automobile at the national level should not obscure the considerable variation in modal usage across geographic areas…. Several smaller metropolitan areas have high proportions of workers who commute by walking or bicycle, and transit commuters are concentrated within a small number of large metropolitan areas. Differences in average travel times also vary geographically. The metro areas with the shortest travel times tend to have smaller populations, while the longest commutes are associated with the nation’s largest metro areas.”

“Not Driving Alone? American Commuting in the Twenty-first Century”
DeLoach,  Stephen B.; Tiemann, Thomas K. Transportation, May 2012, Vol. 29, Issue 3. doi: 10.1007/s11116-011-9374-5.

Abstract: “This paper investigates recent commuting trends by American workers. Unlike most studies of commuting that rely on data from the American Community Survey this study utilizes the American Time Use Survey to detail the complex commuting patterns of modern-day workers. Changes in the price of gasoline in recent years suggest that the incidence of ‘driving alone’ should be on the decline. Indeed, results show that the sensitivity of modal commuting with respect to changes in gasoline prices appears to be relatively large. We estimate the gasoline-price elasticity of driving alone to be 0.057 and the gasoline-price elasticity of carpooling to be 0.502. Additional factors also affect commuting, including socio-economic characteristics and social desires. However, it is changes in gasoline prices that appear to account for nearly all of the recent variation in the mode chosen for commuting.”

“Driving to Opportunity: Local Wages, Commuting and Sub-Metropolitan Quality of Life”Albouy, David; Lue, Bert. University of Michigan, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2011.

Conclusion: “We find as much variation in quality-of-life within metropolitan areas as we do across them. In particular, the highest amenity areas are generally found in denser suburbs, while low-density rural areas are the least amenable: these conclusions are only clear when commuting and residential selection are controlled for. Furthermore, the geographic detail of the data — the best available nationwide for public use — makes it easier to identify how much households value location-specific amenities, providing cross-sectional evidence, both within and across metropolitan areas, that households put great value on safety, schools, and leisure amenities, as well as mild climates and scenic geography.”

“Commuting by Public Transit and Physical Activity: Where You Live, Where You Work and How You Get There”
Lachapelle, U.; Frank, L.; Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2011.

Results: “Regardless of neighborhood walkability, those commuting by transit accumulated more [moderate-intensity physical activity] MPA (approximately 5 to 10 minutes) and walked more to services and destinations near home and near the workplace than transit nonusers. Enjoyment of physical activity was not associated with more transit commute, nor did it confound the relationships between MPA and commuting. Conclusion: Investments in infrastructure and service to promote commuting by transit could contribute to increased physical activity and improved health.”

“Determinants of Bicycle Commuting in the Washington, D.C., Region: The Role of Bicycle Parking, Cyclist Showers and Free Car Parking at Work”
Buehler, Ralph. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, October 2012, Vol. 17, Issue 7. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2012.06.003.

Abstract: “This article examines the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, free car parking and transit benefits as determinants of cycling to work. The analysis is based on commute data of workers in the Washington, D.C., area. Results … indicate that bicycle parking and cyclist showers are related to higher levels of bicycle commuting — even when controlling for other explanatory variables. The odds for cycling to work are greater for employees with access to both cyclist showers and bike parking at work compared to those with just bike parking, but no showers at work. Free car parking at work is associated with 70% smaller odds for bike commuting. Employer-provided transit commuter benefits appear to be unrelated to bike commuting.”

“The Role of Attitudes Toward Characteristics of Bicycle Commuting on the Choice to Cycle to Work Over Various Distances”
Heinen, Eva; Maat, Kees; van Wee, Bert. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, March 2011, Vol. 16, Issue 2. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2010.08.010.

Abstract: “Factor analysis reveals three underlying attitudinal factors toward cycling to work: awareness, direct trip-based benefits and safety. The decision to cycle is influenced by the factor ‘direct trip-based benefit’ at all distances, whereas the ‘awareness’ is influential only over long distances. The decision to cycle every day is again affected by the ‘direct benefit’ factor. The factors ‘safety’ and ‘awareness’ are important over shorter distances. Having a cycling habit increases the likelihood of cycling and a higher frequency of cycling. The perceived opinion of others only affects the mode choice over short distances suggesting … mode choice on longer commutes is based on one’s own attitudes. These findings indicate that attitudes and other psychological factors have a relatively strong impact on the choice to commute by bicycle.”

“Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?”
Hartog, Jeroen Johan de; et al. Environmental Health Perspectives, August 2010, 118(8). doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901747.

Abstract: “We quantified the impact on all-cause mortality when 500,000 people would make a transition from car to bicycle for short trips on a daily basis in the Netherlands. We have expressed mortality impacts in life-years gained or lost, using life table calculations. For individuals who shift from car to bicycle, we estimated that beneficial effects of increased physical activity are substantially larger (3-14 months gained) than the potential mortality effect of increased inhaled air pollution doses (0.8-40 days lost) and the increase in traffic accidents (5-9 days lost). Societal benefits are even larger because of a modest reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and traffic accidents.”

“A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families”
Lipman, Barbara J.; et al. Center for Housing Policy, October 2006.

Introduction: “On average, the study found that working families in the 28 metropolitan areas spend about 57% of their incomes on the combined costs of housing and transportation, with roughly 28% of income going for housing and 29% going for transportation. While the share of income devoted to housing or transportation varies from area to area, the combined costs of the two expenses are surprisingly constant. In areas where families spend more on housing, they tend to spend less on transportation, and vice-versa.”

“It’s Driving Her Mad”: Gender Differences in the Effects of Commuting on Psychological Health”
Roberts, Jennifer; Hodgson, Robert; Dolan, Paul. Journal of Health Economics, September 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.07.006.

Abstract: “Our results show that, even after these variables are considered, commuting has an important detrimental effect on the psychological health of women, but not men, and this result is robust to numerous different specifications. We explore explanations for this gender difference and can find no evidence that it is due to women’s shorter working hours or weaker occupational position. Rather, women’s greater sensitivity to commuting time seems to be a result of their larger responsibility for day-to-day household tasks, including childcare and housework.”

Keywords: cars, mass transit, driving, bicycling, research roundup

---

This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

SOURCE: Leighton Walter Kille
VIA: journalistresource.org
MAIN IMAGE SOURCE: Pixabay