, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 105–123 | Cite as

An analysis of trip chaining among older London residents

  • Jan-Dirk Schmöcker
  • Fengming Su
  • Robert B. NolandEmail author


This paper examines the trip chaining complexity of individuals in London. We adopt two definitions of trip chaining. One based on a 30 min dwell time rule and a second based on home-to-home tours. Our focus is on the complexity of the trip chains as measured by the number of stops on a given tour. The analysis uses the London Area Travel Survey and examines the factors associated with trip chaining for people aged over 65. A comparison with those aged under 65 reveals that older people on average make more complex tours when the 30 min dwell time rule is applied as opposed to when the home-to-home definition is applied. It is further shown that the anchor points of the tour are critical for determining tour complexity, suggesting the usefulness of the 30 min definition. Our analysis also suggests that older people reduce total home-to-home tours by combining different trips into single tours. Through descriptive analysis and ordered probit regression models we examine how reported levels of disability affect their trip chaining and we examine household demographic characteristics as well as proxies for accessibility, such as local population density. The analysis shows that disabilities do not necessarily lead to reduced tour complexity except when walking difficulties become so severe that independent travel is not possible. We suggest that tour complexity might further increase in the future, for example as the spread of mobile phone usage appears to have a further positive influence on tour complexity. Implications for land-use and transport planning are discussed.


Trip chaining Older people Tour definition 


  1. Adler, T., Ben-Akiva, M.: A theoretical and empirical model of trip chaining behaviour. Transp. Res. 13B, 243–257 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Neighborhood design and aging: an empirical analysis in Northern California, unpublished manuscript. (2007)Google Scholar
  3. CasWeb.: Web interface to census aggregate outputs and digital boundary data. Available from (2006). Accessed Nov. 2007
  4. Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Telecommunications and travel demand and supply: aggregate structural equation models for the US. Transp. Res. Part A 41, 4–18 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cirillo, C. and Axhausen, K.W.: Mode choice in complex tours. European transport conference, Cambridge, September (2002)Google Scholar
  6. Department for Transport.: Older people: their transport needs and requirements-main report. Available from (2001). Accessed July 2007
  7. Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J., Lawton, K.T.: Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation 35, 37–54 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giuliano, G., Hu, H., Lee, K.: Travel patterns of the elderly: the role of land use final report of METRANS project. University of Southern California. Available from (2003). Accessed November 2007
  9. Golob, T.F.: A nonlinear canonical correlation analysis of weekly trip chaining behaviour. Transp. Res. 20A, 385–399 (1986)Google Scholar
  10. Golob, T.F., Hensher, D.A.: The trip chaining activity of Sydney residents: a cross-section assessment by age group with a focus on seniors. J. Transp. Geogr. 15, 298–312 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goulias, K.G., Blain, L., Kilgren, N., Michalowski, T., Murakami, E.: Catching the next big wave: are the observed behaviral dynamics of the baby boomer forcing us to rethink regional travel demand models? Paper presented at transportation research board 86th meeting, Washington D.C. (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Greater London Authority.: Webpage titled Mayor’s older people strategy. Available from (2006). Accessed November 2007
  13. Handy, S.: Non-work travel of women: patterns, perceptions and preference. Proceedings of the women’s travel issues second national conference, Baltimoore, US, October (1996), 316–342Google Scholar
  14. Hanson, S.: The importance of the multi-purpose journey to work in travel behaviour. Transportation 9, 229–248 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hensher, D., Reyes, A.J.: Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport. Transportation 27(4), 341–361 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendig, H., Browning, C.J., Young, A.E.: Impacts of illness and disability on the well-being of older people. Disabil. Rehabil. 22(1), 15–22 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, S.: An analysis of elderly mobility using structural equation modeling. Paper presented at transportation research board 82th meeting, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Kitamura, R.: Trip chaining in a linear city. Transp. Res. A 19(2), 155–167 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGuckin, N., Murakami, E.: Examing trip-chaining behaviour—a comparison of travel by men and women”. Transp. Res. Rec. 1693, 1–14 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuckin, N., Zmud, J., Nakamoto, Y.: Trip-chaining trends in the United States. Transp. Res. Rec. 1917, 199–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Metz, D.H.: Mobility of older people and their quality of life. Transp. Policy 7, 149–152 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noland, R.B., Thomas, J.V.: Multivariate analysis of trip-chaining behaviour. Environ. Plan. B (Plan. Des.) 34(6), 953–970 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Noland, R.B., Schmöcker, J.-D., Su, F., Bell, M.G.H.: Trip chaining behaviour of older people in the US and London: effects of medical conditions and urban form. World conference on transport research, Berkeley, CA, (2007)Google Scholar
  24. Rosenbloom, S.: The mobility needs of older Americans: implications for transportation reauthorization. The Brookings institution serious on transportation reform, July (2003)Google Scholar
  25. Rutherford, G., McCormack, E., Wilkinson, M.: Travel impacts of urban form: implications from an analysis of two Seattle area travel diaries. Paper prepared for the travel model improvement program conference on urban design, telecommuting and travel behavior, October (1997)Google Scholar
  26. Schmöcker, J.D., Quddus, M.A., Noland, R.B., Bell, M.G.H.: Estimating trip generation of elderly and disabled people: an analysis of London data. Transp. Res. Rec. 1924, 9–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmöcker, J.-D., Quddus M.A., Noland, R.B., Bell, M.G.H.: Transport mode choice of the elderly and disabled in London. Transportation geography, (2007, in press)Google Scholar
  28. Takahashi, S.: Effects of multiple stops on the distance travelled to a grocery store. Geogr. Rev. Jpn. 59(2), 119–127 (1986)Google Scholar
  29. Ye, X., Pendyala, R.M., Gottardi, G.: An exploration of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns. Transp. Res. 41B(1), 96–113 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan-Dirk Schmöcker
    • 1
  • Fengming Su
    • 2
  • Robert B. Noland
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Comprehensive Transportation of NDRCBeijingChina
  3. 3.Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations