According to the researchers employers do not often use commuting schemes explicitly to influence travel behaviour and contribute to sustainability goals. In practice, however, these schemes can have that effect.

‘Commuting subsidies are far from neutral,’ says Zorlu, a social geographer and econometrician at the University of Amsterdam. ‘They reinforce existing travel patterns and can undermine sustainable mobility policy, especially when they are linked to car use.’

Zorlu and Schindler argue that Commuting subsidies should be seen much more as part of sustainability policy.

What was studied?

The researchers analysed 217,694 unique trips from the national mobility survey conducted by Statistics Netherlands (for 2022 and 2023).

For each trip, they looked at the mode used (car, public transport, cycling/walking), the purpose (work, education, leisure) and the duration. They then estimated how strongly the choice for car, public transport or cycling/walking was associated with a commuting subsidy (which the mobility survey also records).

They grouped various commuting subsidies into two types:

1. Car-use-contingent subsidies: a lease or company car, mileage allowance, and fuel and parking allowances.
2. Non-usage-contingent subsidies: Includes fixed periodic allowances, public transport subscription, and other flat compensations. These are not sensitive to actual travel distance or usage intensity.

Car‑oriented schemes set the tone – beyond work

The researchers point to clear ‘spill‑over’ effects: a lease car or a generous mileage allowance influences the overall mobility pattern, not just commuting trips. ‘Subsidies that are directly linked to car use systematically increase the likelihood that people will take the car and reduce the likelihood of using public transport or cycling/walking. This applies in leisure time as well, and especially to education‑related trips – for example, taking children to school or, as an employee, travelling to a course,’ says Zorlu.

By contrast, allowances such as a public transport season ticket or a cycling scheme reduce the likelihood of car use and increase the likelihood that people will use public transport. ‘These effects are strongest in urbanised areas with good public transport,’ Zorlu notes.

Differences between income groups

The researchers also examined whether income groups respond differently to commuting schemes. ‘People on lower incomes who receive a car‑oriented subsidy are more likely to take the car,’ says Zorlu. ‘Those with higher education are most likely to switch to public transport when they receive a non‑usage‑dependent subsidy.’

According to the researchers, commuting subsidies can thus unintentionally increase transport inequality, making some groups more dependent on the car.

What do these findings mean for policy?

If you want to take sustainable mobility seriously, you should look not only at infrastructure but also at the financial incentives around commuting, the researchers conclude. Zorlu: ‘By redesigning commuting subsidies – for example, making lease‑car and fuel schemes less generous and placing more emphasis on public transport season tickets and cycling schemes –employers and government can reduce car kilometres and encourage public transport use and cycling.’

Article details

Aslan Zorlu & Mirjam Schindler (Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington), ‘(Spill-Over) effects of commuting subsidies on travel mode choice’, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Volume 24, 2026, doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2026.101808.