Skip to main content

The multimodal majority? Driving, walking, cycling, and public transportation use among American adults

Abstract

Multimodality, the use of more than one mode of transportation during a specified time period, is gaining recognition as an important mechanism for reducing automobile dependence by shifting trips from automobiles to walking, cycling, or public transportation. Most prior research on multimodality focuses on Western European countries. Based on the 2001 and 2009 National Household Travel Surveys, this paper analyzes trends and determinants of multimodal car use in the U.S. during a typical week by distinguishing between (1) monomodal car users who drive or ride in a car for all trips, (2) multimodal car users who drive or ride in a car and also use non-automobile modes, and (3) individuals who exclusively walk, cycle, and/or ride public transportation. We find that during a typical week a majority—almost two thirds—of Americans use a car and make at least one trip by foot, bicycle, or public transportation. One in four Americans uses a car and makes at least seven weekly trips by other modes of transportation. Results from multinomial and logistic regression analyses suggest there may be a continuum of mobility types ranging from monomodal car users to walk, bicycle, and/or public transportation only users—with multimodal car users positioned in-between the two extremes. Policy changes aimed at curtailing car use may result in movements along this spectrum with increasing multimodality for car users.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    We divided the frequency of public transportation use for one or two months by four or eight weeks to get average weekly rates. If our calculations yielded less than one public transportation trip per week, individuals were classified as not weekly public transportation users. NHTS data for public transportation use in the past 4 or 8 weeks only include local public transportation.

  2. 2.

    As is not uncommon, some tests of the IIA assumption failed. We estimated a series of binary logistic regression models comparing individual pairs of modality groups, such as monomodal car users versus multimodal car users; and monomodal car users versus wbt-only users. Comparison of results of the MNL and the binary logistic models showed that the signs and significance of coefficients were stable and that the magnitude of coefficients was similar for most variables. The only dissimilarity was that the MNL showed smaller differences within the age and car ownership groups. The binary models had different sample sizes because they excluded individuals from the modality group not analyzed in each specific model. Thus overall we prefer the MNL, because it enables us to evaluate differences between coefficients across the modality groups based on the same sample.

  3. 3.

    Significance was determined based on MNL results of the same sample using multimodal car users as the base group.

References

  1. Axhausen, K.W., Zimmermann, A., Schönfelder, S., Rindsfüser, G., Haupt, T.: Observing the rhythms of daily life: a six-week travel diary. Transportation 29, 95–124 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banister, D.: Unsustainable transport : city transport in the new century. Routledge, London (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Block-Schachter D.: The myth of the single mode man: how the mobility pass better meets actual travel demand. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2009)

  4. Blumenberg, E., Waller, M.: The long journey to work: a federal transportation policy for working families. The Brookings Institution, Washington (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brons, M., Givoni, M., Rietveld, P.: Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transp. Res. Part A. 43, 136–149 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buehler, R., Hamre, A.: Multimodal travel behavior in the United States. Mid Atlantic University Transportation Center (MAUTC) (2013)

  7. Buehler, R., Pucher, J.: Demand for public transport: a comparison of Germany and the USA. Transp. Rev. 32(5), 541–567 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Merom, D., Bauman, A.: Active travel in Germany and the US: contributions of daily walking and cycling to physical activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 41, 241–250 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chlond, B.: Making people independent from the car-multimodality as a strategic concept to reduce CO2-emissions. In: Zachariadis, T. (ed.) Cars and Carbon: Automobiles and European Climate Policy in a Global Context, pp. 269–293. Springer, New York (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Clifton, K., Muhs, C.D.: Capturing and representing multimodal trips in travel surveys transportation research record. J. Transp. Res. Board 2285, 74–83 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Diana, M., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Desire to change one’s multimodality and its relationship to the use of different transport means. Transp. Res. Part F. 12, 107–119 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Forsyth, A., Krizek, K., Rodriguez, D.: Non-motorized travel research and contemporary planning initiatives. Prog. Plan. 71, 170–183 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Garrard, J., Handy, S., Dill, J.: Women and cycling. In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (eds.) City Cycling, pp. 211–234. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Givoni, M., Rietveld, P.: The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel. Transp. Policy 14, 357–365 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goddard, T.B., Handy, S.L., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Voyage of the S.S. Minivan: women’s travel behavior in traditional and suburban neighborhoods. Transp. Res. Rec. 1956, 141–148 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gossen, R., Purvis, C.L.: Activities, time, and travel: changes in women’s travel time expenditures, 1990–2000. In: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Conference Proceedings 35, TRB, pp. 21–29 (2005)

  17. IBM: IBM’s Smarter Cities Challenge: Nice Cote d’Azur Report. IBM (2011)

  18. Khattak, A., Wang, X., Son, S., Agnello, P.: Travel by University Students in Virginia: Is This Travel Different from Travel by the General Population? Transp. Res. Rec. 2255, 137–145 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Knaap, G.: The Determinants of Residential Property Values: Implications for Metropolitan Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 12, 267–282 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuhnimhof, T., Buehler, R., Wirtz, M., Kalinowska, D.: Travel trends among young adults in Germany: increasing multimodality and declining car use for men. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 443–450 (2012a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuhnimhof, T., Chlond, B., von der Ruhren, S.: Users of transport modes and multimodal travel behavior steps toward understanding travelers’ options and choices. Transp. Res. Rec. 1985, 40–48 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuhnimhof, T., Wirtz, M., Manz, W.: Decomposing young Germans’ altered car use patterns. Transp. Res. Rec. 2320, 64–71 (2012b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Litman, T.: Introduction to multi-modal transportation planning: principles and planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2012)

  24. Lucas, K.: Driving to the breadline. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E., Weinberger, R. (eds.) Auto Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours, pp. 209–224. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. McKenzie, B.S.: Neighborhood access to transit by race, ethnicity, and poverty in Portland, OR. City Community 12, 134–155 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Newman, P.W., Kenworthy, J.R.: the land use-transport connection: an overview. Land Use Policy 13, 1–22 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nobis, C.: Multimodality: facets and causes of sustainable mobility behavior. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 35–44 (2007)

  28. Oram, R.L., Stark, S.: Infrequent riders: one key to new transit ridership and revenue. Transp. Res. Rec. 1521, 37–41 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rietveld, P., Bruinsma, F., van Vuuren, D.J.: Coping with unreliability in public transport chains: a case study for Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part A. 35, 539–559 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schlich, R., Axhausen, K.W.: Habitual travel behaviour: evidence from a six-week travel diary. Transportation 30, 13–36 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schonfelder, S., Axhausen, K.W.: Urban rhythms and travel behaviour: spatial and temporal phenomena of daily travel. Ashgate Publishing, Surrey (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sohn, D.W., Moudon, A.V., Lee, J.: The economic value of walkable neighborhoods. Urban Des. Int. 17, 115–128 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. TCRP: Transit pricing and fares. In: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chap 12, vol. 95, Report 95. Transit Cooperative Research Program (2004)

  34. TCRP: Car-sharing: In: Where and How It Succeeds, vol. 108. Report 108. Transit Cooperative Research Program (2005)

  35. TRB: Smart growth and transportation: issues and lessons learned. Transportation Research Board, Baltimore (2002)

  36. Turner, J., Grieco, M.: Gender and time poverty: the neglected social policy implications of gendered time transport and travel. Time Soc. 9, 129–136 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. USCB: American Community Survey 2005–2009 5-year estimates. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  38. USCB: American fact finder. U.S., vol. 2010. Department of Commerce, Washington (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  39. USDOT: National Household Travel Survey (2001)

  40. USDOT: National Household Travel Survey 2009. Version 2.0/2010. Washington (2009)

  41. USDOT: The national bicycling and walking study: 15-year status report (2010)

  42. Vij, A., Carrel, A., Walker, J.L.: Capturing modality styles using behavioral mixture models and longitudinal data. Paper presented at the 2nd international choice modelling conference, Leeds (2011)

  43. Wang, X., Khattak, A., Sanghoon, S.: What can be learned from analyzing university student travel demand. Transp. Res. Rec. 2322, 129–137 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a 2-year research project funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation: “Multimodal Individual Travel in the United States.” It is part of the Research Initiatives Program of the Mid-Atlantic University Transportation Center (MAUTC).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph Buehler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buehler, R., Hamre, A. The multimodal majority? Driving, walking, cycling, and public transportation use among American adults. Transportation 42, 1081–1101 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9556-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multimodality
  • USA
  • Trends 2001–2009
  • Multimodal and monomodal car users
  • Walk, bicycle, and public transportation only users
  • Individual travel behavior