INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

2016, VOL. 10, NO. 4, 354–364

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2014.945672

An examination of recent trends in multimodal travel behavior among American

motorists
Ralph Buehler and Andrea Hamre
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

According to national statistics, 87% of all trips in the United States are by automobile and 90% of Received 2 December 2013
commuters typically get to work by car. Statistics for individual trips or the main mode of commuting do Revised 6 July 2014
not capture variability in individual travel behavior over time. This article uses the 2001 and 2009 National Accepted 14 July 2014
Household Travel Surveys to analyze recent trends in the share of multimodal motorists who use a car and KEYWORDS
also walk, bicycle, or ride public transport during a day or week. This article identifies trends of multimodal Multimodal car user;
behavior among car users in the United States and provides profiles of these multimodal motorists. sustainable transport; travel
During a typical day about 14% of American car users make at least two trips by foot, bicycle, or public behavior; trends 2001–2009;
transport, while during a typical week about 25% of motorists make at least seven trips by means of USA
transport other than the car. Results from a bivariate analysis and logistic regressions suggest significant
shifts toward more multimodal behavior among motorists between 2001 and 2009. Multimodal motorists
tend to be younger, educated beyond high school, in households without cars, and live in high-density
neighborhoods with access to a rail system. Results suggest that planning for walking, cycling, and public
transport benefits a larger proportion of the U.S. population than suggested by traditional trip-based
analysis.

1. Introduction socioeconomic profiles of monomodal and multimodal moto-

Reliance on the automobile is high in the United States.
According to national statistics, 87% of all trips in the United
States are by automobile and 90% of commuters typically get to
work by car (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; U.S. DOT, 2010b). To
address negative externalities from reliance on the car for most
trips, policymakers are seeking effective ways to increase use of
public transport, walking, and cycling (Forsyth, Krizek, &
Rodriguez, 2009; Lucas, 2011; Small and Verhoef, 2007; U.S.
DOT, 2006, 2009, 2010a; Weiner, 2013).
Because car ownership and use is high in the United States,
it is likely that Americans who switch to walking, cycling, or
public transport for some trips will continue to drive for other
trips. Therefore, multimodality—the use of multiple modes of
transport during a day, week, or month—is gaining recognition
as a potential strategy for reducing automobile reliance by
switching some trips to walking, cycling, or public transport
(Chlond, 2012; Kuhnimhof et al., 2012a; Nobis, 2007). To date,
little research has focused on the group of American motorists
who walk, cycle, or ride public transport for some trips—the
so-called “multimodal car users.”
Based on two National Household Travel Surveys, the
NHTS 2001 and 2009, this article analyzes travel behavior of
multimodal car users (motorists) in the United States. The
analysis focuses on multimodal motorists during a travel day or
week. The goals of this article are to provide an overview of the
recent multimodality literature, identify recent trends of multi-
modality in the United States, and develop demographic and
rists in the United States. A better understanding of multimodal
car use in the United States will help identify target groups for
policies aimed at increasing walking, cycling, and public trans-
port use (Chlond, 2012; Diana & Mokhtarian, 2009; Kuhnim-
hof, Chlond, & von der Ruhren, 2006; Oram & Stark, 1996).
2. Literature: Overview of multimodality concept,
data sources, and key findings
2.1 Concept and terminology of multimodality
Multimodality is an emerging field of study, but it is an exten-
sion of a larger body of research on intrapersonal variability of
travel behavior. There are four main dimensions of intraper-
sonal variability that have been studied: (a) temporal, (b) spa-
tial, (c) purpose, and (d) modal. The “temporal” dimension
refers to variability in timing and frequency of travel. This
includes, for example, studies about intrapersonal variability in
trip duration, trip start times, or frequency of trip-making dur-
ing a specific time frame (e.g., a week). The “spatial” dimension
captures variability in geographic location and extent of travel.
This includes, for example, studies on variability in route choice
for different trips from the same origin to the same destination.
The “purpose” dimension analyzes variability in travel pur-
poses or activities. This includes, for example, variability in trip
purposes during a week. Last, the “modal” dimension focuses
on variability in the use of means of transport over time. This
dimension captures the use of different modes of transport

CONTACT Ralph Buehler ralphbu@vt.edu Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, 1021 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis, Group LLC

during a month, week, day, or tour. Studies of intrapersonal
variability of travel behavior suggest that travel is more var-
ied—temporally, spatially, modally, and by purpose—than oth-
erwise captured by the more common analysis focusing on
individual trips, such as the commute (Schonfelder & Axhau-
sen, 2010).
Terminology and definitions of multimodality vary across
studies (Block-Schachter, 2009). In general, multimodality is
defined as the use of at least two modes of transport during a
trip chain, day, week, or longer time period. By contrast, mono-
modality is defined as the use of a single mode during a speci-
fied time period. Some studies incorporate intensity measures
to further distinguish multi- and monomodality. These studies
identify thresholds based on the percentage of trips made by a
single mode. For example, two studies defined individuals with
“monomodal tendencies” as using a single mode for over 70%
or over 90% of all trips (Nobis, 2007; Vij, Carrel, & Walker,
2011).
Studies further distinguish groups of multi- and monomodal
individuals based on the modes of transport used. For example,
multimodality is subdivided into groups based on the combina-
tion of modes of transport used (e.g., car and bicycle, car and
public transport, bicycle and public transport, etc.). Monomo-
dality is based on exclusive travel either by car, foot, bicycle, or
public transport. When intensity of use is incorporated, mono-
modality may be based on a heavy tendency toward travel by a
single mode. Some studies of multimodality focus on the car,
public transport, and bicycling, and exclude walking as a mode
of transport (Kuhnimhof et al., 2006; Nobis, 2007).
The term intermodality is typically used when referring to
the use of multiple modes of transport within one trip or a trip-
chain. For example, public transport use is often intermodal,
because individuals typically access public transport stops or
stations by foot, bicycle, or automobile (Givoni & Rietveld,
2007). Intermodality can also be used to describe the use of
multiple modes of transport during a trip-chain—defined as
stopping and changing a mode of transport between the origin
and main destination of a trip (Clifton & Muhs, 2012; Nobis,
2007).
2.2 Typical data sources
Studies of multimodality typically rely upon the following types
of data: (a) multi-week travel surveys, (b) weeklong travel sur-
veys, and (c) one-day travel surveys with questions about travel
during longer time periods. As the time period of observation
increases, the share of the population exhibiting multimodal
behavior increases (Clifton & Muhs, 2012; Nobis, 2007). How-
ever, most studies suggest that survey periods of one week tend
to capture most of the variability in everyday habitual travel
behavior (Kuhnimhof et al., 2006). In those studies, a week is
described as a “natural increment for the cyclical recurrence of
many day-to-day activities” (Block-Schachter, 2009; Nobis,
2007). Longer multi-week survey periods additionally capture
more occasional travel behavior (Schlich & Axhausen, 2003).
Multimodality can also be studied using data derived from
single-day surveys that additionally contain questions about
habitual or occasional mode use. For example, two studies of
multimodality rely in part on the German National Household
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 355
Travel Survey, Mobilit€at in Deutschland (“MiD”) (Clifton &
Muhs, 2012; Nobis, 2007). MiD is based on a single-day travel
diary. The survey includes questions about how often different
modes of transport are used during a typical week. A limitation
of this type of data is that reporting on travel behavior during
the prior week is more prone to recall error, particularly for
short trips, than reporting on travel behavior via travel diaries.
2.3 Recent findings on multimodal motorists
Empirical study of intrapersonal variability of travel behavior
has been limited by the scarcity of information on multiday
travel (Schonfelder & Axhausen, 2010). However, increasing
recognition of variability of travel over time has led to greater
support for multiday data collection (Kuhnimhof, 2009; Schon-
felder & Axhausen, 2010). An overview of recent findings on
multimodal car use since 2005 is provided in Table 1.
Most national level studies focus on Germany or the Nether-
lands, while U.S.-based studies only capture specific urban
areas or regions, such as the San Francisco Bay Area (Diana &
Mokhtarian, 2009) or the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy university community (Block-Schachter, 2009).
Comparison of findings about multimodality across studies
is difficult, because of diverging geographic scales, data sources,
timing, and definitions of multimodality. However, most stud-
ies agree that multimodal car use is correlated with not owning
a car, not having a driver’s license, younger age, living in a
smaller household, and having good access to public transport.
Having a driver’s license and easy access to a car makes car use
for all trips more feasible and is correlated with monomodal
car use. Multimodal car use among younger travelers is likely
related to better access to steeply discounted public transport
tickets and school environments conducive to walking, cycling,
and riding public transport. Authors hypothesize that smaller
households without children may have less complicated travel
patterns that create greater flexibility regarding travel sched-
ules, making use of walking, cycling, and public transport more
feasible. Moreover, the literature suggests that convenient
access to public transport makes it more likely that a traveler
can substitute away from car use for at least some trips. The
findings regarding gender have been more variable and seem to
relate to the specific modal combinations used in conjunction
with driving. For example, one study found men more likely to
combine driving with cycling, but women more likely to com-
bine driving with other modes in general (Nobis, 2007). A
more detailed discussion of the literature and studies referenced
here can be found elsewhere (Buehler & Hamre, 2013).
3. Data sources and methods
3.1 Data sources: NHTS 2001 and 2009
Data for this analysis originate from the 2001 and 2009
National Household Travel Surveys (NHTS). NHTS 2001
and 2009 have only minor differences and many similarities
in methods and variable definitions that render an analysis
of trends over time meaningful (U.S. DOT, 2010b). For
both surveys, households were contacted via random digit
dialing of landline telephone numbers. Both surveys
356 R. BUEHLER AND A. HAMRE

Table 1. Recent findings on determinants of multimodal car use published since 2005.

Author(s), year Level of analysis Main data source(s) Main method(s) Multimodal car use findings
(study area)

Kuhnimhof et al. (2012b)
Chlond (2012)
Vij et al. (2011)
Brons and Rietveld (2010)
Diana and Mokhtarian (2009) Subnational (San Survey of San Francisco Bay Area
Block-Schachter (2009) Subnational
Brons et al. (2009)
Nobis (2007)
Givoni and Rietveld (2007)
Kuhnimhof et al. (2006)
National (Germany) Kontiv 1976; German Mobility Panel
(MOP) for 1995–2009; German
Income and Expenditure Survey for
1998 and 2008
Subnational City of Karlsruhe Office of Statistics for Case study analysis
(Karlsruhe, 1980–2005; other City of Karlsruhe
Germany) secondary sources
Subnational Survey of Karlsruhe and Halle/Salle
(Karlsruhe and residents based on six-week data
Halle/Salle, collection in 1999 (MobiDrive)
Germany)
National (The Rail use data from Dutch Railways (NS); Descriptive quantitative analysis,
Netherlands) rail performance data from ProRail;
car use data from CBS-Statline;
additional station, postcode area
and timetable data from various
sources, for 2004–2005
Francisco Bay residents in 1998; survey of
Area, CA, and employees of the French National
France) Institute for Transport and Safety
Research in 2004
Surveys of MIT students, faculty, and Descriptive quantitative analysis
(Massachussetts staff based on weeklong data
Institute collection in 2004, 2006, and 2008
of Technology
university
community)
National (The Survey by Dutch Railways (NS) on
Netherlands) customer satisfaction
National (Germany) German Mobility Panel (MOP) for
1999–2004; Mobilitat in
Deutschland (MiD) for 2002
National (The Survey by Dutch Railways (NS) on
Netherlands) customer satisfaction in 2005
National (Germany) German Mobility Panel (MOP) for
1996–2003; Mobilitat in
Deutschland (MiD) for 2002
Descriptive quantitative analysis,
multivariable regression analysis
Descriptive quantitative analysis,
multivariable regression analysis
multivariable regression analysis
Cluster analysis
Descriptive quantitative analysis,
principal component analysis,
multivariable regression analysis
Descriptive quantitative analysis,
multivariable regression analysis
Descriptive quantitative analysis,
multivariable regression analysis
Descriptive quantitative analysis,
multivariable regression analysis
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with younger age, less
car availability, not having a
driver’s license, higher
educational attainment, being
female, living in an urban area,
auto restraint measures, and
awareness of environmental
impacts.
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with younger age, less
car availability, living in an urban
area, auto restraint measures, and
awareness of environmental
impacts.
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with more bicycle
availability, less car availability,
being female, and small
household size.
Multimodal car use tends to be
negatively associated with travel
time unreliability (regarding
public transport).
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with less car
availability, higher educational
attainment.
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with less car
availability, longer tenure in
current residence, neighbors with
multimodal patterns, proximity to
public transport, and residing in
an urban area.
Multimodal car use tends to be
positively associated with the
quality and level of station
accessibility.
Multimodal car use tends to be
positively assoicated with younger
and older age groups, less car
availability, not having a driver’s
license, no employment, small
household size, and residing in an
urban area.
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with station
accessibility improvements.
Multimodal car use tends to be
associated with younger age, less
car availability, using public
transport as a commute mode,
not having a driver’s license,
higher educational attainment,
small household size, and living in
an urban area.

Sources. Block-Schachter (2009), Brons et al. (2009), Brons and Rietveld (2010), Chlond (2012), Diana and Mokhtarian (2009), Givoni and Rietveld (2007), Kuhnimhof et al.
(2012b), Kuhnimhof et al. (2006), Kuhnimhof (2009), Nobis (2007), Vij et al. (2011a).

combined telephone interviews with single-day travel diaries memory jogger. Both surveys asked respondents about the
to record trips of all household members during a randomly number of trips by walking and cycling during the previous
assigned travel day. Once the travel day passed, households week, as well as public transport use during the last two
were called to report their travel using the diary as a months (2001) or month (2009).

The surveys were conducted between March 2001 and April
2002 as well as March 2008 and April 2009. Responses were
collected for all days of the year, including weekdays, weekends,
and holidays. The final samples included 160,758 individuals
living in 69,817 households making 642,292 daily trips for the
2001 survey, and 324,184 individuals living in 150,147 house-
holds making 1,167,321 daily trips for the 2009 survey.
The surveys used stratified sampling of all states, Census
regions, and metropolitan areas, such that each survey is repre-
sentative of the United States. A complex weighting procedure
accounts for nonresponse as well as the exclusion of households
without landline telephone service. This analysis applies the
2001 and 2009 weights to ensure statistically representative esti-
mates for the United States as a whole.
3.2 Methods: Analyzing monomodal and multimodal car
use with the NHTS
To evaluate population shares of multimodal motorists in the
United States, this analysis relied on data from the daily trip
and person data files of the 2001 and 2009 NHTS surveys. Data
about variability in mode choice of driving, public transport,
walking, and cycling during the day originate from the trip file
based on the single-day travel diary. Individuals recorded all
trips made during a randomly assigned travel day. Trips were
defined as travel between two addresses. Additionally, the anal-
ysis includes separate modes of transport reported for trips to
and from public transport. The mode of transport used for
individual trips and for public transport access and egress was
aggregated and matched to the trip maker and then added to
the person data set.
In addition to the 24-hour trip data, the analysis also
includes weekly data available in the NHTS person file with
responses to specific questions about the number of trips made
by walking and cycling during the previous week. Moreover,
the authors measured the use of public transport during the
last week based on a variable capturing public transport use in
the previous two months provided in the 2001 survey and pub-
lic transport use in the previous month recorded in the 2009
survey. Neither survey included questions about car use in the
previous week or month. Thus, the data for weekly car use orig-
inate from the single-day travel diary and a question asking
about the usual mode of transport for the commute to work in
the previous week.
The literature review above showed that there is no standard
definition of multimodality. Some studies distinguish between
monomodals who exclusively use one mode of transport, and
multimodals who use multiple modes. Other studies combine
those who exclusively use one mode together with individuals
with monomodal tendencies who make the majority of their
trips by one mode. Studies define multimodality groups based
on travel distance, travel time, or number of trips. Some studies
exclude walking, either because walk trips are often underre-
ported or because walking is a poor indicator in studies that
derive multimodality from trip distance—a measure dominated
by faster motorized modes.
Results from the literature review and an empirical analysis
of the 2001 and 2009 NHTS informed the definition of mono-
modal and multimodal groups for this analysis. This analysis
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 357
relies on number of trips (and not trip distance or travel time),
because NHTS does not include travel distance or travel time
for the weekly data. Moreover, this analysis includes walk trips,
because the NHTS survey protocol features specific prompts
reminding respondents to report walk trips. Following Nobis
(2007) and Vij et al. (2011) the “momomodal category” for this
study comprises both monomodal car users, who drove for all
trips, and car users with monomodal tendencies, who made
few trips by modes other than the car.
At the day level the cutoff value between the monomodal
and multimodal categories was set at drivers with two or more
additional trips by other modes of transport. Drivers who only
made one trip by foot, bicycle, or public transport were consid-
ered individuals with monomodal tendencies and grouped with
respondents who drove for all trips. This definition provides a
conservative threshold for multimodality, by treating drivers
who only made one additional trip during the travel day as
monomodal drivers. Empirically, about 22% of multimodal
drivers reported only one additional non-car trip. Drivers with
two additional non-car trips constituted the largest group
among multimodal respondents (52%). Driving plus three or
more non-car trips accounted for 26% of daily multimodal
drivers, with no subsequent categories (motorist plus four, plus
five, etc.) representing more than 9% of multimodal drivers.
At the week level, the cutoff value between the monomodal
and multimodal categories was set at driving and seven or more
trips by other modes of transport during the week—one trip by
an alternative mode per day. A statistical average of one addi-
tional trip by walking, cycling, or public transport per weekday
can be considered habitual daily use of modes other than driv-
ing. Empirically, the weekly data had more gradual breaks than
the daily data presented above. The percentage shares of multi-
modal motorists were: 12% for one non-car trip per week; 16%
for two non-car trips; 16% for three non-car trips; 11% for four
non-car trips; 11% for five non-car trips; and 6% for six non-car
trips. Slightly more than 14% reported seven non-car trips per
week, representing a local maximum in the distribution; subse-
quent categories (motorist plus eight, motorist plus nine, etc.
non-car trips per week) only accounted for small shares (<4.5%
each) of the distribution of multimodals.
The analysis first compares population shares of multimodal
motorists in 2001 and 2009 at the aggregate level and for popu-
lation subgroups using the “day C 2” and “week C 7” thresh-
olds. This part of the analysis identifies levels of multimodality
in population subgroups without controlling for other varia-
bles. The second part of the analysis compares statistical signifi-
cance of differences in multimodal driving for population
subgroups in 2001 and 2009 using logistic regressions based on
the 2001 and 2009 NHTS. The regressions calculate the likeli-
hood of multimodal car use in 2001 and 2009, after controlling
for the impacts of all the other variables analyzed. Wald tests
compare coefficients of the 2001 and 2009 regressions to assess
statistical significance of changes over time. The first and sec-
ond parts of the analysis complement each other. The bivariate
analysis shows levels (population shares) of multimodality not
shown in the regression analysis, but cannot control for the
influence of other variables. The regression produces estimates
of coefficients for individual variables while controlling for
other variables in the analysis.
358 R. BUEHLER AND A. HAMRE

3.3 Limitations or more trips by modes other than the car rose from 22.3% to
25.1%.1 The table also lists population shares for week and day
There are important limitations to this analysis of multimodal
levels across both years for the independent variables. Control
car use based on the NHTS data sets:
variables were chosen based on data availability in NHTS and
First, the data sets provide detailed information about all
variables identified in the literature review including gender,
modes of transport used during one travel day. Weekly data
race/ethnicity, age, household life cycle, education, employment
rely on self-reported trips during the past week for walking and
status, income, car access, land use, rail access, and weekend
cycling and during the past 1–2 months for public transport,
versus weekday travel (day level only). Population shares for
and are likely not as reliable as information from travel diaries.
independent variables only changed minimally between the
Second, there was no information about car use during the
two years (between C/¡0.0% and C/¡2.0%), with the excep-
week other than the mode for the usual commute and driving
tion of two age groups. Between 2001 and 2009, the share of
for trips reported for the travel day. Thus, the weekly data do
individuals between 25 and 34 decreased significantly from
not capture the intensity of driving (e.g., number of car trips
20.6% to 14.5%, while the share of 50- to 64-year-olds increased
per week). Moreover, the analysis may underestimate the share
significantly from 20.1% to 26.3%. In both years the weekly
of multimodal drivers, because of the lack of information about
data has slightly more cases than the daily data. Some trip mak-
the usual car use during the week.
ers who did not drive during the travel day reported commut-
Third, this analysis excluded individuals who did not report
ing by car during the week.
any trips for the assigned travel day. Even if they reported walk,
The vast majority of multimodal motorists reported
bike, or public transport trips during the week, missing infor-
walking as their only non-automobile mode of transport at
mation about their car use during the travel day inhibited accu-
the “day C 2” (78.5% in 2001 and 81.8% in 2009) and
rately categorizing them into one of the modality groups.
“week C 7” (65.7% in 2001 and 68.2% in 2009) levels. The
Fourth, the 2009 survey only asked respondents older than
share of multimodal motorists reporting the use of two dif-
15 about travel during the last week. Thus, this analysis
ferent modes of transport in addition to the car was higher
excludes children 15 and younger. Many analyses of multimo-
at the week than at the day level. In 2009, 14.7% of multi-
dality exclude children who cannot drive, because children
modal motorists in the “week C 7” category combined
legally have to rely on others (often their parents) if they wish
walking and cycling, while the share was 18.7% for the
to travel by automobile (Kuhnimhof et al., 2006; Vij et al.,
combination of walking and public transport. Using all four
2011). Only including individuals 16 and older (driving age in
modes of transport was rare, with 2.6% of multimodal
most U.S. states) focuses the analysis on those who can obtain a
motorists in the “week C 7” category reporting walking,
driver’s license (or provisional driving permit) and legally drive
cycling, and riding public transport. In 2009, 18.5% of daily
a car.
monomodal car users were weekly multimodal motorists at
Last, our analysis compares changes over time using two
the “week C 7”0 level. The NHTS trip file allows for a more
independent cross-sectional data sets. Therefore, the analysis
detailed analysis of the number of daily trips, average daily
cannot claim to observe changes in travel behavior for the same
trip distance, and daily trip purpose. In 2009, individuals in
individual over time. An analysis to track changes in travel
the “day C 2” multimodal car use category made more trips
behavior of individuals would rely on a panel data set with the
per person per day than monomodal car users (6.4 vs. 4.4).
same individuals reporting on their daily and weekly travel
Daily monomodal car users made longer trips with an aver-
over time. Moreover, a quasi-experimental study that would
age trip distance of 10.8 miles compared to 6.4 miles. Aver-
allow comparison between a “treatment group” and a “control
age total daily travel distance was greater for monomodal
group” would allow researchers to isolate causal factors for
car users (47.0 miles) than multimodal car users (40.7
multimodality. This analysis relies on data of independently
miles). Monomodal motorists made a higher share of trips
sampled observations from 2001 and 2009. In recognition of
for shopping, personal errands, and schooling (31.8% of all
potential changes in the distributions of variables between sur-
trips) than multimodal motorists (24.2%). Work and work-
vey years, this study employs Wald tests of our logistic regres-
related trips accounted for a higher share of trips among
sion coefficients to test for significant changes over time. We
monomodal than multimodal motorists (22.7% vs. 17.3%).
also present descriptive statistics of the independent variables
By contrast, compared to monomodal car users, multimodal
and discuss the potential influence of changes in the composi-
motorists made a greater share of their trips for recreational
tion of the population between the two surveys.
purposes (33.8% vs. 24.2%).

4. Mode choice and multimodality

1
4.1 Trends in multimodal driving at the day and week
levels and independent variables 2001–2009
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and definitions for the
dependent and independent variables used in this analysis—
both for the day and week level and for 2001 and 2009. Between
2001 and 2009, the share of drivers making two or more daily
trips by foot, bicycle, or public transport increased from 11.0%
to 13.5%. At the week level, the share of drivers making seven
Our analysis included mode choice for access and egress trips to public transport.
Excluding public transport access and egress trips from our analysis would
decrease the share of individuals considered multimodal. However, because the
share of all trips by public transport is relatively low in the United States, the dif-
ference in results is not large. We prefer to include public transport access and
egress trips to more accurately capture modal variability at the person level.
However, we recognize that travel demand forecasting typically excludes these
trips. Excluding public transport access and egress would mean a change in the
population share of the “day C 2” group from 11.0% to 10.2% in 2001 and
13.5% to 12.5% in 2009, and a change in the share of the “week C 7” group
from 22.3% to 22.0% in 2001 and 25.1% to 25.0% in 2009.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 359

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and measurement of variables in the analysis.

Day Week

2001 2009 2001 2009 Description & Measurement

   
Variable Categories Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Share of motorists who…

Day modal groups Driver with maximum of 1 0.890 0.313 0.865 0.341 NA NA NA NA … make 0 or 1 walk, bike, and/or
non-car trip per day public transport trips per day
Driver with at least 2 0.110 0.313 0.135 0.341 NA NA NA NA … who make 2 or more walk, bike,
non-car trips per day and/or public transport trips per
day
Week modal groups Driver with maximum of 6 NA NA NA NA 0.777 0.416 0.749 0.434 … make 0 or 1–6 walk, bike, and/or
non-car trips per week public transport trips per week
Driver with at least 7 NA NA NA NA 0.223 0.416 0.251 0.434 … make 7 or more walk, bike, and/or
non-car trips per week public transport trips per week
Gender Female 0.504 0.500 0.504 0.500 0.503 0.500 0.503 0.500 … are female
Male 0.496 0.500 0.496 0.500 0.497 0.500 0.497 0.500 … are male
Race/ethnicity Non-White 0.247 0.431 0.231 0.421 0.248 0.432 0.230 0.421 … identified as Non-White
White 0.753 0.431 0.769 0.421 0.752 0.432 0.770 0.421 … identified as White
Age Age 16–24 0.148 0.355 0.129 0.335 0.148 0.355 0.129 0.335 … are 16 to 24 years old
Age 25–34 0.206 0.405 0.146 0.353 0.206 0.405 0.146 0.353 … are 25 to 34 years old
Age 35–49 0.319 0.466 0.326 0.469 0.320 0.466 0.327 0.469 … are 35 to 49 years old
Age 50–64 0.201 0.401 0.263 0.440 0.201 0.401 0.263 0.440 … are 50 to 64 years old
Age 65C 0.125 0.331 0.136 0.342 0.125 0.331 0.135 0.342 … are 65 years old or above
Household life cycle Singles 0.101 0.301 0.117 0.321 0.101 0.301 0.117 0.321 … live in households with a single
adult and no children
2C adults only 0.387 0.487 0.384 0.486 0.387 0.487 0.384 0.486 … live in households with two adults
and no children
With children 0.512 0.500 0.499 0.500 0.512 0.500 0.500 0.500 … live in households with children
Education Status Education < D high school 0.379 0.485 0.354 0.478 0.378 0.485 0.354 0.478 … have education up to high school
Education >high school 0.621 0.485 0.646 0.478 0.622 0.485 0.646 0.478 … have education beyond high
school
Employment status Not employed 0.286 0.452 0.281 0.450 0.285 0.452 0.279 0.449 … are not employed
employed 0.714 0.452 0.719 0.450 0.715 0.452 0.721 0.449 … are employed
Income quartile Lower income quartile 0.321 0.467 0.337 0.473 0.321 0.467 0.338 0.473 … are in the first income quartile
Middle income quartiles 0.461 0.498 0.443 0.497 0.461 0.498 0.442 0.497 … are in the second and third
income quartiles
Upper income quartile 0.218 0.413 0.220 0.414 0.218 0.413 0.220 0.414 … are in the fourth income quartile
Household car availability 0 Household cars 0.018 0.132 0.019 0.137 0.018 0.133 0.019 0.137 … live in households with zero
household automobiles
1 Household car 0.200 0.400 0.212 0.409 0.200 0.400 0.212 0.409 … live in households with one
household automobile
2 Household cars 0.429 0.495 0.418 0.493 0.429 0.495 0.418 0.493 … live in households with two
household automobiles
3C Household cars 0.353 0.478 0.351 0.477 0.353 0.478 0.350 0.477 … live in households with three
household automobiles
Residential density Density <10,000 0.903 0.296 0.910 0.286 0.902 0.297 0.909 0.287 … live in locations with population
density per square mile below
10,000
Density > D 10,000 0.097 0.296 0.090 0.286 0.098 0.297 0.091 0.287 … live in locations with population
density per square mile at or
above 10,000
Rail access Not in MSA with rail 0.741 0.438 0.730 0.444 0.741 0.438 0.729 0.444 … live outside a Metropolitan
Statistical Area with a rail system
MSA with rail 0.259 0.438 0.270 0.444 0.259 0.438 0.271 0.444 … live in a Metropolitan Statistical
Area with a rail system
Travel day Weekday 0.716 0.451 0.723 0.448 NA NA NA NA … traveled between Monday and
Friday
Weekend 0.284 0.451 0.277 0.448 NA NA NA NA … traveled Saturday or Sunday
# of cases 93,270 192,575 93,731 193,654

Sources. NHTS 2001 and 2009.


As measured all variables have a range from 0 to 1 and the mean indicates the population share falling in the specific subgroup.

4.2 Bivariate analysis of multimodal car use in 2001 and
2009
Table 3 presents shares of multimodal motorists at the “day C
2” and “week C 7” levels disaggregated by demographic, socio-
economic, and land-use variables for the years 2001 and 2009.
The goal of this bivariate analysis is to present levels of multi-
modality for different population subgroups—looking at one
independent variable at a time. Statistical signifıcance in trends
over time is determined by calculating differences in weighted
proportions or means between two independent samples (p <
0.01). The analysis also compares differences in multimodal
driving for population subgroups—examining the statistical
significance of bivariate differences using t tests and analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with Scheffe posttests to assess differences
between groups (p < 0.01). Section 4.4 will go beyond this two-
variable analysis and present a logistic regression analysis con-
trolling for the impact of other variables.
360 R. BUEHLER AND A. HAMRE

Table 3. Trends in shares of multimodal motorists at day and week levels between 2001 and 2009.

Day level Dependent variable Week level Dependent variable

(1 D 2 or more non-car trips; 0 D 0 or 1 non-car trip) (1 D 7 or more non-car trips; 0 D 0 to 6 non-car trips)

Variable 2001 2009 Change 01–09 (Ho: 01 D 09) 2001 2009 Change 01–09 (Ho: 01 D 09)

All 10.9 13.4 p < 0.01 22.1 25.1 p < 0.01

Female 11.3 13.3 p < 0.01 20.5 23.1 p < 0.01
Male 10.5 13.4 p < 0.01 23.8 27.1 p < 0.01
Non-White 12.2 14.3 p < 0.01 22.1 24.8 p < 0.01
White 10.5 13.1 p < 0.01 22.2 25.2 p < 0.01
Age 16–24 10.8 12.1 24.4 25.0
Age 25–34 12.0 15.9 p < 0.01 20.0 24.3 p < 0.01
Age 35–49 10.8 14.4 p < 0.01 21.6 25.0 p < 0.01
Age 50–64 10.6 13.3 p < 0.01 22.6 26.6 p < 0.01
Age 65C 10.3 10.0 23.5 23.5
Singles 13.4 15.8 24.5 26.4
2C Adults only 11.1 12.5 p < 0.01 23.1 26.3 p < 0.01
With kids 10.3 13.4 p < 0.01 20.9 23.9 p < 0.01
Education < D H.S. 9.4 10.2 21.1 23.7 p < 0.01
Education >H.S. 11.9 15.1 p < 0.01 22.7 25.7 p < 0.01
Not employed 11.0 12.5 p < 0.01 23.4 27.0 p < 0.01
Employed 10.9 13.7 p < 0.01 21.6 24.3 p < 0.01
Lower income 11.0 11.8 23.8 26.0 p < 0.01
Middle income 10.0 13.1 p < 0.01 21.3 24.6 p < 0.01
Upper income 13.0 16.7 p < 0.01 22.3 25.5 p < 0.01
0 HH Cars 31.9 28.0 48.1 43.5
1 HH Car 14.4 15.9 25.3 28.6 p < 0.01
2 HH Cars 10.5 13.8 p < 0.01 20.3 23.5 p < 0.01
3C HH Cars 8.3 10.5 p < 0.01 21.1 23.9 p < 0.01
Density <10,000 9.8 12.3 p < 0.01 21.0 24.5 p < 0.01
Density > D 10,000 21.5 23.8 32.5 31.5
Not in MSA with rail 9.3 11.5 p < 0.01 20.7 24.3 p < 0.01
MSA with rail 15.5 18.2 p < 0.01 26.2 27.2
Weekday 11.5 14.1 p < 0.01 NA NA
Weekend 9.4 11.3 p < 0.01 NA NA

Source. Authors’ analysis of NHTS 2001 and 2009.

Note. T tests and ANOVA with Sheffe posttests (p < 0.01) showed that most variable categories were statistically significantly different from each other. However, there
are some exceptions as listed below. In 2001 at the day level, only the age group between 25 and 34 was different from other age groups and there was no statistical
difference by employment level. In 2009 at the day level, there were no differences by gender and by race/ethnicity. In 2001 at the week level, there was no statistically
significant difference between the 16–24 and 65C, 35–49 and 65C, and 50–64 and 65C age groups, as well as between the middle and higher income groups. In 2009
at the week level, there were no significant differences for 16–24 and 25–34, 16–24 and 35–49, 25–34 and 35–49, 25–34 and 65C, and 50–64 and 65C age groups, sin-
gle and two adult households, lower and upper income quartiles, and two- and three-car households.

For all population subgroups, multimodality levels were
greater at the week than at the day level (p < 0.01). In
both years the week- and day-level analysis show that
households without cars and in the high population density
categories display the highest shares of multimodal drivers.
Similarly, in 2009 at both thresholds the individuals with a
high school degree or less, more cars, 65 and older, and
without rail access had among the lowest shares of multi-
modal drivers. Moreover, the majority of population sub-
groups showed increasing shares of daily and weekly
multimodal motorists between 2001 and 2009—exceptions
include the 16–24 and 65C-year-olds, singles, the carless,
and those at lower population densities.
In 2009, there were higher shares of multimodal motorists
among men than women (27.1% vs. 23.1%) and among Whites
than non-Whites (25.2% vs. 24.8%) at the “week C 7” level, but
there were no differences by gender or race/ethnicity at the
“day C 2” level (p < 0.01). Between the two surveys, the share
of multimodal motorists increased among Whites, non-Whites,
men, and women (p < 0.01).
At both thresholds, the age group 65C had the lowest share
of multimodal motorists in 2009 (p < 0.01). At the “day C 2”
level the 25- to 34-year-old age group had the highest share of
multimodal car users and the share of multimodal motorists
declined with increasing age between the age groups of 25–34
and 65C. The “week C 7” level showed more homogenous rates
of multimodal car use for all age groups ranging only from
23.5% to 26.6%. Between the surveys, the shares of multimodal
motorists increased significantly for the age groups between 25
and 64 at both thresholds. Multimodal car use did not change
significantly for older adults (65C) and those 16–24.
At both multimodality thresholds singles were more likely multi-
modal motorists than other household life-cycle groups. In contrast
to the other two life-cycle groups, singles did not show a significant
change in multimodal car use between 2001 and 2009 (p < 0.01).
At both thresholds individuals with education beyond high
school were more likely multimodal motorists than those with
a high school degree or less. Moreover, the share of multimodal
car users among those with education beyond high school
increased significantly over the last decade. By contrast, for
those with a high school degree or less the share of multimodal
motorists increased only in the “week C 7” category. Individu-
als who are not employed (or not in the workforce) were more
likely multimodal motorists at both day and week levels in
2009. The share of multimodal motorists increased among
both employed individuals and those not employed.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 361

Table 4. Relative likelihood of being a multimodal motorist for population subgroups at week and day levels in 2001 and 2009.

Day level Dependent variable Week level Dependent variable

(1 D 2 or more non-car trips; 0 D 0 or 1 non-car trip) (1 D 7 or more non-car trips; 0 D 0 to 6 non-car trips)

2001 2009 2001 2009

Variable AOR AOR Change 01-09 (Ho: 01 D 09) AOR AOR Change 01-09 (Ho: 01 D 09)

Gender Female 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Male 0.969 1.015 1.269 1.343 p < 0.01
Race/ethnicity Non-White 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
White 1.158 1.146 1.436 1.245 p < 0.01
Age Age 16–24 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Age 25–34 0.935 1.135 p < 0.01 0.761 1.010 p < 0.01
Age 35–49 0.958 1.129 p < 0.01 0.907 1.134 p < 0.01
Age 50–64 0.956 1.109 p < 0.05 0.902 1.137 p < 0.01
Age 65C 0.788 0.803 0.839 0.863
Household life cycle Singles 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2C Adults only 1.071 0.940 p < 0.01 1.445 1.003 p < 0.01
With kids 0.972 0.923 1.268 0.864 p < 0.01
Education status Education < D H.S. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Education >H.S. 1.485 1.672 p < 0.01 1.147 1.119
Employment status Not employed 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Employed 0.963 0.943 0.961 0.817 p < 0.01
Income quartile Lower income 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Middle income 1.055 1.200 p < 0.01 0.882 0.959 p < 0.01
Upper income 1.325 1.591 p < 0.01 0.891 1.036 p < 0.01
Household car availability 0 HH Cars 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1 HH Car 0.321 0.485 p < 0.01 0.373 0.542 p < 0.01
2 HH Cars 0.217 0.374 p < 0.01 0.274 0.503 p < 0.01
3C HH Cars 0.168 0.299 p < 0.01 0.288 0.529 p < 0.01
Residential density Density <10,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Density > D 10,000 2.098 1.565 p < 0.01 1.418 1.214 p < 0.01
Rail access Not in MSA with rail 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
MSA with rail 1.364 1.353 1.121 1.063
Travel day Weekday 1.000 1.000 NA NA
Weekend 0.814 0.805 NA NA

p < 0.01 Number of cases 93,270 192,575 93,731 193,654
Likelihood-ratio p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01

Source. Authors’ analysis of NHTS 2001 and 2009.

For the “day C 2” category, higher income was associated
with a greater share of multimodal motorists. This was not
found for the “week C 7” category. For both thresholds, the
share of multimodal car users in the mid-income groups
increased significantly between 2001 and 2009.
The share of multimodal motorists was greatest for those liv-
ing in households without cars and the share of multimodal
motorists declined as car ownership increased. Over time, the
shares of multimodal motorists in households with cars
increased significantly, while the changes for individuals in
households without cars were not statistically significant (p <
0.01).
At both levels the share of multimodal motorists is
greater at higher population densities and for those with
rail access. Over time, the “day C 2” category showed sig-
nificant increases in multimodal car use for high density
and both rail access categories. However, there was no sig-
nificant change of multimodal car use for the high-density
category at the weekly level.
4.3 Logistic regression analysis of multimodal car user at
day and week levels in 2001 and 2009
Table 4 presents results from four logistic regression models—
one model for each year (2001 and 2009) at the day and week
levels—estimating the likelihood of being a multimodal driver
while controlling for other variables. Explanatory variables in
the multiple regression analysis include all of the demographic,
socioeconomic, and land-use variables introduced in Tables 2
and 3. Within each regression, adjusted odds ratios (AORs) are
interpreted as the population subgroup’s likelihood of being
multimodal relative to a specific reference group assigned the
base value 1.000.
Within each column of results, AORs of independent
variables are evaluated according to three criteria: (a) the
sign of the coefficient (AOR), (b) its magnitude in relation
to the reference category, and (c) its statistical significance.
An additional column presents results from a Wald test of
statistical difference comparing AORs for the 2001 and
2009 models. For all four models, likelihood ratio tests (LR
tests) indicate that independent variables have joint signifi-
cance. Variance Inflation Factor and Tolerance tests for
multicollinearity do not indicate any serious problem.
4.3.1 Day level
Models 1a and 1b show no difference in the likelihood of multi-
modal car travel between men and women for 2001 and 2009.
In both years Whites were about 1.16 times as likely multi-
modal as non-Whites (AORs 1.158 and 1.146). In 2001 and
2009, those 65 and older were less likely to be multimodal
motorists than those 16–24 (AORs 0.788 and 0.803). Although
there was no difference in the likelihood to be a multimodal
362 R. BUEHLER AND A. HAMRE
motorist between the age groups 25–64 and those 16–24 years
old in 2001, by 2009 the mid-age groups were more likely mul-
timodal than the 16- to 24-year-olds (AORs 1.135, 1.129,
1.109). Similarly, in 2001 there was no statistical difference in
the likelihood to be multimodal between single and other
household life-cycle categories, but in 2009, households with
children were associated with a lower likelihood to be multi-
modal than single-person households (AOR 0.923).
In both years individuals with more than a high school edu-
cation were more likely to be multimodal than those with a
high school degree or less (AOR 1.485 and 1.672). This differ-
ence increased significantly between 2001 and 2009 (p < 0.01).
Similarly, in 2009 those in the middle and highest income
groups were significantly more likely multimodal than those in
the lowest income quartile—with significant increases in AORs
between the two survey years for the higher income groups.
In both years, more cars per household were associated with
a decreased likelihood of being multimodal. However, the dif-
ference between individuals in carless households and those in
households with cars diminished between 2001 and 2009—as
evidenced by larger AORs for the year 2009 than for 2001
(0.485, 0.374, 0.299 vs. 0.321, 0.217, 0.168). In both years,
higher population density and access to rail were associated
with a greater likelihood of being multimodal. Lastly, weekend
travelers were only about 0.800 times as likely multimodal as
respondents who traveled during weekdays (AOR 0.814 and
0.805).
4.3.2 Week level
Most variables and categories show statistically significant
changes between AORs for the 2001 and 2009 week-level mod-
els (p < 0.01)—with the exceptions of the oldest age and educa-
tion groups. In contrast to the day-level analysis that found no
difference between genders, men were 1.300 times as likely
weekly multimodals as women (AORs 1.269 and 1.343). Similar
to the day-level analysis, Whites were more likely multimodal
than non-Whites (AORs 1.436 and 1.245). As for the day-level
analysis, in both years the age group 65C was less likely multi-
modal than the 16- to 24-year-olds (AORs 0.839 and 0.863). In
addition, like results for the day level, in 2009 those in house-
holds with children were less likely multimodal than singles
(AOR 0.864). Similar to the day-level analysis, those with more
than a high school education had a greater likelihood to be
multimodal than those with a high school degree or less (AORs
1.147 and 1.119). On the week and day level, employed individ-
uals were less likely multimodal than those not employed or
not in the workforce. Like in the day-level analysis, more cars
per household were associated with lower likelihood of multi-
modality and the difference between those in households with
and without cars diminished between the years (as evidenced
by larger AORs for 2009). Population density and rail access
were related to a greater likelihood to be a multimodal motorist.
5. Discussion
The analysis reveals that travel behavior of U.S. motorists is
more varied than trip-based analysis suggests. American moto-
rists make roughly 93% of their daily trips by automobile and
drive for almost 95% of regular commutes (U.S. DOC, 2011;
U.S. DOT, 2011). However, this analysis shows that longer
time periods capture greater variability in travel behavior
(Schonfelder & Axhausen, 2010): 25.1% of motorists make at
least seven trips by another mode of transport during a week
and 13.5% of American motorists walk, cycle, or ride public
transport for at least two trips per day.
Between 2001 and 2009, the share of multimodal motorists
increased at the aggregate level and for most population sub-
groups analyzed in this study. Increasing multimodality of
motorists may help explain overall declining car travel demand
in the United States (ITF/OECD, 2012; Millard-Ball & Schip-
per, 2011). The NHTS survey shows that in spite of a drop in
daily vehicle miles traveled (62.3 to 56.1 per person) and num-
ber of daily trips by car (4.31 to 3.92 per person), vehicle own-
ership rates among car users did not change between 2001 and
2009 (2.32 and 2.34 cars per household member at driving
age). Increasing multimodality—more daily trips by foot (0.53
to 0.63 per person), bicycle (0.02 to 0.03), and public transport
(0.10 to 0.11)—may help explain why in 2009 Americans
owned automobiles at the same rate as in 2001, but drove fewer
miles and made fewer trips by car. Finally, the increase in mul-
timodality may possibly be related to the economic downturn;
higher gasoline prices; slower increases in roadway supply, traf-
fic congestion and constrained individual time budgets; the
impact of new technology; or more and better infrastructure
for walking, cycling, and public transport (Kuhnimhof, 2012b;
Millard-Ball & Schipper, 2011; Newmann & Kenworthy, 2011).
The vast majority of multimodal motorists reported walking
as their only non-automobile mode of transport at the day
(»80%) and week (»67%) levels. Use of two modes of trans-
port in addition to the car was rare on the day level (<10% of
multimodal car users), but accounted for about 30% of multi-
modal motorists at the week levels. In addition, roughly 3% of
multimodal motorists in the “week C 7” category reported
using three other modes—walking, cycling, and riding public
transport—in addition to driving.
Overall, multimodal car users made more trips per day than
monomodal car users. However, average total daily travel dis-
tance was shorter for multimodal than monomodal motorists
(»41 vs. 47 miles). This is in line with at least one prior study
from Germany, suggesting fewer miles traveled for multimodal
than for monomodal car users (Nobis, 2007). Shorter travel dis-
tances among multimodal car users suggest that a higher share
of multimodal individuals in the population may help explain
reduced overall vehicle miles of travel (Chlond, 2012).
Disaggregate analysis showed diverging trends and levels
of multimodal car use across population subgroups. Results
at the national level for the United States do not necessarily
conform to findings from prior studies in Europe and at
the regional level in the United States. For example,
although prior studies consistently showed a lower share of
multimodal car users among men than women in Europe
(Kuhnimhof et al., 2006; Nobis, 2007), the only significant
difference by gender in this study was a higher share of
multimodal motorists among men than women at the
“week C 7” level. More ubiquitous car ownership in U.S.
households—compared to Europe—may help explain similar
levels of multimodal car use among American women and
men. The lower car ownership levels in Europe may result
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 363

in greater differences in car access across genders. For 6. Conclusion

example, in households where men work outside the home
For many transport planners, a small share of trips by foot,
and drive to work, women may be forced to make more
bicycle, and public transport in the United States suggests that
trips without the car (Giuliano & Narayan, 2004). Some
only a small minority of Americans walk, cycle, or ride public
readers may think that the difference is related to the inclu-
transport. However, statistics for individual trips or the main
sion of walk trips in this analysis, while walk trips were
mode of commuting to work do not capture variability in indi-
excluded in other studies. A separate analysis excluding
vidual travel behavior over time. The analysis of the 2001 and
walk trips, however, still shows the same results, including
2009 NHTS finds that during a typical day about 14% of Amer-
more multimodality among men than among women at the
ican car users make at least two trips by foot, bicycle, or public
week level.
transport. Moreover, during a typical week about 25% of Amer-
At all thresholds the age group 65C had among the lowest
ican motorists make at least seven trips per week by means of
share of multimodal motorists in this study. This is in line with
transport other than the car.
most prior studies that indicate less multimodality among older
The analysis of trends over time suggests a significant shift
individuals. Moreover, between the surveys, the shares of multi-
toward multimodal behavior among motorists between 2001 and
modal motorists increased significantly for the age groups
2009 at the aggregate level and for most population subgroups. In
between 25 and 64 at all multimodality thresholds. This study
spite of increases in multimodality for many population subgroups,
thus expands upon the recent findings of increasing multimo-
multimodal motorists tend to be younger, educated beyond high
dality among young adults (Kuhnimhof et al., 2012a,b) by sug-
school, live in households without cars, in high-density neighbor-
gesting increasing multimodality for a larger share of the
hoods, and in areas with a rail system. Policies that promote walk-
population.
ing, cycling, and public transport use for everyone may help
This study showed higher levels of multimodal car use
increase multimodal car use among current monomodal motorists
among those with higher education. This is consistent with
and enforce the trend toward higher shares of multimodality
prior findings of higher levels of walking and cycling among
among motorists who already use alternatives to driving but wish
individuals with higher levels of education (Buehler, Pucher,
to increase the intensity of their multimodality. Policies that facili-
Merom, & Bauman, 2011). One explanation may be that while
tate access to public transport and increase population densities
attending university, individuals learn to appreciate walking,
with shorter trip distances may help to further increase the share of
cycling, and riding public transport as viable modes of trans-
multimodal drivers in the United States. In contrast to European
port (Khattak, Wang, Son, & Agnello, 2011; Transit Coopera-
countries, multimodality in the United States is hindered by
tive Research Program [TCRP], 2004; Wang, Khattak, &
sprawled settlement patterns with low population densities and
Sanghoon, 2012). This experience may then be reflected in their
long trip distances that often render walking, cycling, and public
later travel behavior after leaving university.
transport impractical.
Individuals in single households were more likely multi-
More and better data about travel behavior during the week
modal car users than those in households with children or two
could strengthen future analysis. The weekly analysis captures
or more adults. This confirms prior studies that suggest that
more variability in travel than found by analysis of just one travel
households with more adults, and especially those with chil-
day. This suggests that household travel surveys should attempt to
dren, have more complicated trip patterns than individuals.
capture longer time periods than is currently standard practice in
Picking up or dropping off other household members likely
the United States to obtain a more holistic picture of the variability
requires a car for most trips in the United States—even if direct
of individual travel. Additionally, a panel survey, with repeat meas-
individual trips (without stops along the way) could be made
ures of the same respondents over time, would facilitate the analysis
by modes other than the car.
of changes in travel behavior of individuals. Recognizing these
Car ownership is an important factor influencing monomo-
potential improvements, the findings of this study suggest that
dal versus multimodal car use. The share of multimodal moto-
planning for walking, cycling, and public transport directly benefits
rists was greatest for those living in households without cars at
a larger proportion of the U.S. population than suggested by tradi-
all four thresholds. Moreover, the share of multimodal moto-
tional trip-based analysis.
rists declined with higher car ownership levels. These findings
are consistent with prior studies that find car ownership to
have a strong influence on multimodal car use (Kuhnimhof Funding
et al., 2012b; Kuhnimhof et al., 2006; Nobis, 2007; Vij et al.,
2011). However, over time the share of multimodal motorists This research has been supported by the Mid-Atlantic University Trans-
increased for households with cars. This means that a higher portation Center (MAUTC) of U.S. DOT’s Research and Innovative Tech-
nology Administration (RITA), grant number DTRT12-G-UTC03.
share of those in households with automobiles also make trips
by foot, bicycle, or public transport.
For both years and both the week and day level the share of References
multimodal motorists is greater at higher population densities
and in areas with rail access. These findings are consistent with Block-Schachter, D. (2009). The myth of the single mode man: How the
prior studies that connect living in urban areas and near public mobility pass better meets actual travel demand (Master’s thesis).
Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/51677
transport to higher levels of multimodal car use (Kuhnimhof Brons, M., Givoni, M., & Rietvield, P. (2009). Access to railway stations
et al., 2012b; Kuhnimhof et al., 2006; Nobis, 2007; Vij et al., and its potential in increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A:
2011). Policy and Practice, 43, 136–149.
364 R. BUEHLER AND A. HAMRE
Brons, M. and Rietveld, P. (2010). The impact of travel time unreliability on
the choice of rail, access mode, and departure station. 12th World Con-
ference on Transport Research, July 11–15, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal.
Buehler, R., & Hamre, A. (2013). Multimodal travel behavior in the United
States. University Park, PA: Mid Atlantic University Transportation
Center (MAUTC).
Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Merom, D., & Bauman, A. (2011). Active travel in
Germany and the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41,
241–250.
Chlond, B. (2012). Making people independent from the car: Multimodal-
ity as a strategic concept to reduce CO2-emissions. In T. I. Zachariadas
(Ed.), Cars and carbon: Automobiles and European climate policy in a
global context (pp. 269–293). The Netherlands: Springer.
Clifton, K., & Muhs, C. D. (2012). Capturing and representing multimodal
trips in travel surveys. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2285, 74–83.
Diana, M., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2009). Desire to change one’s multimodal-
ity and its relationship to the use of different transport means. Trans-
portation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 107–
119.
Forsyth, A., Krizek, K., & Rodriguez, D. (2009). Non-motorized travel
research and contemporary planning initiatives. Progress in Planning,
71, 170–183.
Giuliano, G., & Narayan, D. (2004). A comparison of work and non-work
travel: The U.S. and Great Britain. In P. Rietveld & R. Stough (Eds.),
Barriers to sustainable transport (pp. 111–129). London, England: E.T.
Spoon.
Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The access journal to the railway station
and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel. Transport Policy,
14, 357–365.
ITF/OECD (International Transport Forum/Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development). (2012). Peak travel, peak car and the
future of mobility: Evidence, unresolved issues, policy implications, and
a research agenda. Retrieved from http://www.internationaltransportfo
rum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201213.pdf
Khattak, A., Wang, X., Son, S., & Agnello, P. (2011). Travel by university
students in Virginia: Is this travel different from travel by the general
population? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2255, 137–145.
Kuhnimhof, T.G. (2009, January). Measuring and modeling multimodal
mode use in the longitudinal section. Paper presented at the Transporta-
tion Research Board 88th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Kuhnimhof, T., Armoogum, J., Buehler, R., Dargay, J., Denstadli, J., &
Yamamoto, T. (2012a). Men shape a downward trend in car use among
young adults – Evidence from six industrialized countries. Transport
Reviews, 32, 761–779.
Kuhnimhof, T., Buehler, R., Wirtz, M., & Kalinowska, D. (2012b). Travel
trends among young adults in Germany: Increasing multimodality and
declining car use for men. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 443–
450.
Kuhnimhof, T., Chlond, B., & von der Ruhren, S. (2006). Users of trans-
port modes and multimodal travel behavior: Steps toward understand-
ing travelers’ options and choices. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1985, 40–48.
Lucas, K. (2011). Driving to the breadline. In K. Lucas, E. Blumenberg, &
R. Weinberger (Eds.), Auto motives: Understanding car use behaviours
(pp. 209–224). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Millard-Ball, A., & Schipper, L. (2011). Are we reaching peak travel?
Trends in passenger transport in eight industrialized countries. Trans-
port Reviews, 31, 357–378.
Newmann, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2011). Peak car use: Understanding the
demise of automobile dependence. World Transport Policy and Prac-
tice, 17, 31–42.
Nobis, C. (2007). Multimodality: Facets and causes of sustainable mobility
behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2010, 35–44.
Oram, R. L., & Stark, S. (1996). Infrequent riders: One key to new transit
ridership and revenue. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1521, 37–41.
Schlich, R., & Axhausen, K. W. (2003). Habitual travel behaviour: Evidence
from a six-week travel diary. Transportation, 30, 13–36.
Schonfelder, S., & Axhausen, K. W. (2010). Urban rhythms and travel
behaviour: Spatial and temporal phenomena of daily travel. Surrey,
England: Ashgate Publishing.
Small, K. A., & Verhoef, E. T. (2007). The economics of urban transporta-
tion. New York, NY: Routledge.
TCRP (Transit Cooperative Research Program). (2004). Report 95 (Chap-
ter 12): Transit pricing and fares: Traveler response to transportation
system changes. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce.
U.S. DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). (2011). United States Census.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Census
Bureau.
U.S. DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). (2006). Building livable com-
munities with transit. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration.
U.S. DOT. (U.S. Department of Transportation). (2009). Transportation
and climate change clearinghouse. Washington, DC: United States
Department of Transportation.
U.S. DOT. (U.S. Department of Transportation). (2010a). The National
Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-year status report.
U.S. DOT. (U.S. Department of Transportation). (2010b). National House-
hold Travel Survey 2009 (Version 2.0/2010). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
U.S. DOT. (U.S. Department of Transportation). (2011). Summary of
travel trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Washington,
DC: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
Vij, A., Carrel, A., & Walker, J. L. (2011). Capturing modality styles using
behavioral mixture models and longitudinal data. Retrieved from
http://www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/research/mobidrive/vij_carrel_wal
ker_2011_capturing_modality_styles.pdf
Wang, X., Khattak, A., & Sanghoon, S. (2012). What can be learned from
analyzing university student travel demand. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2322, 129–137.
Weiner, E. (2013). Urban transportation planning in the United States: His-
tory, policy, and practice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Copyright of International Journal of Sustainable Transportation is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.