Transportation Letters

The International Journal of Transportation Research

ISSN: 1942-7867 (Print) 1942-7875 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytrl20

The effect of soft variables on travel mode choices

Seungil Yum

To cite this article: Seungil Yum (2019): The effect of soft variables on travel mode choices,
Transportation Letters, DOI: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1687196

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1687196

Published online: 05 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytrl20
TRANSPORTATION LETTERS
https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1687196

The effect of soft variables on travel mode choices

Seungil Yum
Design, Construction, and Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper aims to highlight how soft variables play an important role in travel mode choices in the New York Soft variables; racial/ethnic
metropolitan area. This study focuses on the effects of racial/ethnic affinities and travel purposes on travel affinities; travel mode
mode choices. This study finds that racial/ethnic affinities play a different role in travel mode choices choices; travel purposes;
according to racial/ethnic groups. For instance, racial/ethnic affinities play a negative role in carpooling of carpooling; New York;
multinomial logit model;
whites for leisure, unlike other racial/ethnic groups. This result shows that the general hypothesis is wrong, transportation planning
that is, living in racial/ethnic neighborhoods has a positive impact on carpooling. This study highlights that
travel mode choices are differentiated by travel purposes across racial/ethnic groups. For example, Hispanics
are positively related to the household carpool, whereas they show a negative probability of those for
school. The results show that urban planners should take soft variables into account for travel mode choices.

Introduction Therefore, this study explores the effect of soft variables on travel
mode choices, focusing on two variables, which have been barely
Reducing car use has been one of the important topics for urban
highlighted in the prior research: racial/ethnic affinities and travel
planners to pursue sustainable development and relieve traffic con-
purposes. First, racial/ethnic affinities can play a pivotal role in
gestion. For instance, according to the Census Bureau’s American
people’s travel behavior. For instance, racial/ethnic affinities in
Community Survey (see https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableser
neighborhoods can provide a better environment for carpooling
v i c es / j s f / p a g e s / p r o d u c t v i e w . x h t m l ? p i d = A C S _ 1 7 _ 5 Y R _
with a rapport based on the cultural, racial, linguistical bond.
S0802&prodType=table), solo driving to work accounts for 76.4% of
Blumenberg and Smart (2009) find a significant relationship
all commuters in the US in 2017. Scholars have focused on the travel
between the residential location in ethnic clusters and travel beha-
mode choices to encourage other alternative means of transportation
vior. They show that residence in an ethnic neighborhood is posi-
against car use. They have widely highlighted the effects of socio-
tively associated with carpools and public transit in urban areas.
demographic factors, such as gender and age, and built environment
With respect to the suburbs, residence in ethnic neighborhoods is
factors, such as connectivity and bus stops, on the travel mode
related to a greater propensity to carpool but it is negatively asso-
choices. These variables are referred to as ‘hard variables’
ciated with public transit. Smart (2015) reveals that living in an
(Sztompka 2000). However, even though ‘soft variables’, such as
immigrant neighborhood has a strong effect on travel mode choices
subjective and psychological factors, can play an important role in
for immigrant residents and a much weaker power for non-
travel mode choices as much as hard variables, they have been largely
immigrant residents in immigrant neighborhoods.
unexamined in the existing literature. For instance, Stern and
Second, travel purposes can be one of the important determi-
Richardson (2005) argue that most of the travel behavior models
nants for travel mode choices. The fact is easily understood by
lack cognitive explanatory variables explaining travel mode choices.
a question, that is, ‘why do people travel?’ The answer is that people
This is because soft variables are problematic to include the variables
travel because of purposes to do something at the destinations. In
into a mathematical model (Ross 1975).
fact, people travel more for other purposes than commuting to
Recent research has emphasized that soft variables should also
work in their daily lives. For instance, the frequency of trips for
be included in the travel behavior analysis (Angueira et al. 2019;
other purposes is about 58%, which is higher than one half, whereas
Chorus 2012; Smart and Klein 2013; Van Acker, Mokhtarian, and
that of commuting trips is about 42% in the study area of this
Witlox 2010; Van Wee, Holwerda, and Van Baren 2002). This is
article. In other words, trips for other purposes are also one of the
because travel mode choices would be influenced by subjective and
main drivers for understanding people’s travel behavior and gen-
psychological factors as well as objective and physical factors (Fujii
erating traffic flows.
and Kitamura 2003). According to existing literature, soft variables
In addition, while ridesharing, such as carpool, vanpool, and other
have an important impact on travel behavior (see e.g. Kamargianni
group rides, is emerging as a new travel mode against car use and
et al. 2015; Mosa and Esawey 2013; Spears, Houston, and Boarnet
plays an important role in racial/ethnic groups who earn a low
2013; Van Acker, Mokhtarian, and Witlox 2010; Vredin Johansson,
income, many prior studies simply categorize travel modes into
Heldt, and Johansson 2005). For instance, Van Acker, Mokhtarian,
solo driving, carpool, and transit (see e.g. Bhat 2000; Hess 2001; van
and Witlox (2010) show that subjective characteristics, such as
der Waerden, Lem, and Schaefer 2015; Wang and Chen 2012;
lifestyles and attitudes, play important decisive factors for model
Washbrook, Haider, and Jaccard 2006). In contrast, this study speci-
choices in leisure travel at various model levels. Vredin Johansson,
fically divides ridesharing into household carpool and inter-
Heldt, and Johansson (2005) exhibit that soft variables enriched
household carpool to shed more light on ridesharing modes and
discrete choice model outperforms the traditional discrete choice
provide deep analysis of travel behavior of individuals. This study
model.

CONTACT Seungil Yum yumseungil@ufl.edu Design, Construction, and Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. YUM
explores the relationship between four racial/ethnic groups (whites,
blacks, Asians, Hispanics) and four travel modes: solo driving (SD),
household carpools (HCP), inter-household carpools (ICP), and
public transit (PT).
In this background, the main purposes of this article are three-
fold as follows: first, this study aims to provide empirical models
explaining how racial/ethnic affinities in neighborhoods play an
important role in travel mode choices with controlling other hard
variables. To be specific, this study employs a race/ethnicity Index
(REI) to measure the effects of racial/ethnic affinities in neighbor-
hoods for travel mode choices according to race/ethnicity (whites,
blacks, Asians, Hispanics). Second, this study highlights the rela-
tionship between the four racial/ethnic groups and travel behavior
according to six travel purposes (work, school, shopping, leisure,
home, and others). Third, this study analyzes the relationship
between the four racial/ethnic groups and four travel mode cate-
gories to suggest more implications for improving ridesharing, the
mobility of different racial/ethnic groups, and equity. To the best of
my knowledge, this is the first article exploring the effects of soft
variables on travel behavior according to the multitude of racial/
ethnic groups, travel purposes, and travel modes (four, six, and
four, respectively). For the purposes of this articles, this study uses
the 2010/2011 Regional Household Travel Survey (RHTS) in the
New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan area and the US
Census Bureau.
Literature review
While soft variables have not been fully highlighted as much as hard
variables as they are tricky to be included into econometric models,
some authors have tried to highlight the effects of soft variables on
travel mode choices (see e.g. Chorus 2012; Kamargianni et al. 2015;
Spears, Houston, and Boarnet 2013). Recent empirical studies show
that soft variables are important determinants for travel behavior
and mode choices (Chorus 2012). For example, Kamargianni et al.
(2015) find that soft variables play a significant role in school mode
choices by employing multinomial probit-based integrated choice
latent variable models in Cyprus in 2012. Spears, Houston, and
Boarnet (2013) highlight that soft variables have a significant and
consistent impact on the decision for using public transit in Los
Angeles.
Previous studies also have indicated that racial/ethnic groups
have different preferences for same-race neighbors. For instance,
Charles (2000) finds that whites prefer a higher percentage of same-
race neighbors on average and are the most likely to specify all-
same-race neighborhoods. In contrast, blacks are the least likely to
specify all-same-race neighborhoods in a multiracial sample of
adults (N = 4,025) in Los Angeles. Emerson, Chai, and Yancey
(2001) explain that while black neighborhood composition does
matter to whites, Asian and Hispanic neighborhood composition
do not matter based on a national, random-digit-dial survey of
1,663 white Americans. These racial/ethnic affinities would affect
travel behavior because ethnic-based social networks can play an
important role in travel mode choices. For instance, Blumenberg
and Smart (2009) show that individuals in ethnic neighborhoods
tend to commute by carpool and public transit more than other
workers in Los Angeles based on the 2000 U.S. Census. Liu and
Painter (2012) also find that people in ethnic neighborhoods are
more likely to choose carpooling and public transit.
Also, it is a well-known fact that race/ethnicity plays a crucial
role in travel behavior (see e.g. Bento et al. 2003; Blumenberg 2009;
Blumenberg and Smart 2009; Charles 2000; Emerson, Chai, and
Yancey 2001; Giuliano 2003; Liu and Painter 2012; Polzin, Chu, and
Rey 1999; Schlossberg et al. 2006). For instance, Polzin, Chu, and
Rey (1999) find that blacks show the most significant race/ethnicity-
based difference for greater use of public transit even though other
socioeconomic variables of individuals are controlled. Giuliano
(2003) demonstrates that racial/ethnic differences are clearly not
limited to results caused by different location patterns and socio-
economic variables, but rather by primary differences in what
motivates travel behavior and mode choices by analyzing the 1995
US Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey data. Bento et al.
(2003) highlight that blacks are more apt to walk and take public
transit to commute, whereas whites are less inclined to choose a bus
in 114 urbanized areas in the US based on the data of 1990
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey.
Some authors have highlighted that travel purposes are highly
related to travel behavior. For instance, McFadden (1978) argues
that travel behavior would differ by what people do at travel desti-
nations, that is, travel purposes. Dieleman, Dijst, and Burghouwt
(2002) find that the purpose of a trip, such as work, shopping, and
leisure, is related to travel mode and distance by using the
Netherlands National Travel Survey. Scheepers et al. (2013) report
that trip purposes are an important determinant for the use of
active (walking or cycling) transport versus passive (car) transport
modes based on a dataset of household members (n = about 53,000
respondents annually) in Mobility Research Netherlands from 2004
to 2009. For example, they show that taking or bringing persons and
sports are more inclined to be made by active transport modes than
by car. Klöckner and Friedrichsmeier (2011) indicate that the pur-
pose of a trip is another significant predictor for travel mode
choices. They find that both trips to work and leisure activities
show a higher likelihood of car use by analyzing 26,865 individual
trips of the Ruhr-University students in Bochum.
However, while travel purposes are highly related to travel mode
choices given that people travel based on the purpose, most studies
have heavily focused on commuting to work (see e.g. Blumenberg
and Pierce 2014; Chatman 2003; Eluru, Chakour, and El-Geneidy
2012; Hess 2001; Pinjari et al. 2007; Van Vugt, Van Lange, and
Meertens 1996; Washbrook et al. 2006). Therefore, understanding
non-work travel is becoming increasingly important because of its
growing impact on the lives of people and transportation infra-
structures (Polzin, Chu, and Rey 1999). Some studies explore the
relationship between travel purposes and travel mode choices,
whereas they only divide travel purposes into binary categories,
that is, commuting trips and non-work trips (see e.g. Hensher and
Rose 2007; Kroesen and Handy 2014; LaMondia and Bhat 2011).
Other studies design their research for a single purpose, such as
shopping, leisure, and school (see e.g. Boarnet and Sarmiento 1998;
LaMondia and Bhat 2011; Schwanen, Dijst, and Dieleman 2001). In
other words, there are few studies, which highlight the relationship
between travel mode choices and various travel purposes in empiri-
cal models.
Lastly, many prior studies analyze travel mode choices among
driving alone, carpooling, transit to highlight the travel patterns of
individuals by employing a empirical model (see e.g. Bhat 2000; Hess
2001; van der Waerden, Lem, and Schaefer 2015; Wang and Chen
2012; Washbrook, Haider, and Jaccard 2006). For example,
Washbrook, Haider, and Jaccard (2006) analyze commuter mode
choice among driving alone, carpooling, and taking express bus
based on the effect of road pricing and parking charges. Hess
(2001) examines the probabilities of solo driving, carpool, and transit
for work when they receive free parking in Oregon, Portland. Bhat
(2000) highlights that individual characteristics for mode preferences
and responsiveness among sold driving, carpool, and transit in San
Francisco Bay area. While some studies highlight other travel mode
choices, such as inter-household carpool (see e.g. Blumenberg and
Smart 2010; Li et al. 2007; Neoh, Chipulu, and Marshall 2017), they
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 3

are not related to the effect of soft variables on travel mode choices. where j = (1, . . ., n) refers to the census tract, Eij indicates the
Therefore, this study analyzes how soft variables play a pivotal role in number of the racial/ethnic group in the census tract, Ej means
various travel modes (SD, HCP, ICP, and PT). the total population in the census tract, Eie is the number of the
racial/ethnic group in the reference area; and Ee refers to the total
population in the reference area. The value of the REI index is
Research design calculated by the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 year
estimates and 2010/2011 RHTS. An REI greater than 1 indicates
This study highlights the effects of soft variables, as well as hard
that the neighborhood has a greater level of the ethnic group than
variables, on travel mode choices in the New York/New Jersey/
the case in the reference area. If an REI is equal to 1, then the
Connecticut metropolitan area, using the 2010/2011 Regional
neighborhood has the same level of the ethnic group as it does in
Household Travel Survey (RHTS). The RHTS was sponsored by the
the reference area. This study defines high racial/ethnic affinities
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the
based on the REI value higher than 1.5 as authors recommend the
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). In total,
value to identify a concentration. For instance, Ellis, Wright, and
31,156 households were recruited to participate in the survey. Of
Parks (2006) use a value of 1.5 to distinguish clustered tracts and
these, 18,965 households completed travel diaries. All households
non-clustered tracts to highlight the immigrant household and
within the 28-counties constituting the New York/New Jersey/
spatial assimilation. Liu and Painter (2012) define Latino immigrant
Connecticut metropolitan area were eligible for inclusion in the
enclaves with cutoff 1.5 given that the value greater than 1 means
survey through a random sampling process (NYMTC and NJTPA
a greater level of Latino immigrant concentration.
2013). Figure 1 demonstrates the 28-counties in the study area.
Figure 2 shows that racial/ethnic neighborhoods are differen-
This study assumes that higher racial/ethnic affinities can be
tiated by racial/ethnic groups and regions. For instance, whites are
measured by higher values of racial/ethnic neighborhoods. Racial/
concentrated in the Northwest side of New York and the Northeast
ethnic groups tend to cluster together in neighborhoods based on
side of New Jersey, and blacks are clustered in the East side of
racial/ethnic affinities. This is because they provide a pool of tangi-
New York and the North side of New Jersey. Asians are heavily
ble and intangible assets that promote social, cultural, economic
located near the boundary of New York and New Jersey, and
devilment of its members. In other words, racial/ethnic affinities in
Hispanics are largely placed in the East side of New York and the
neighborhoods help people get valuable knowledge and resources,
Northeast side of New Jersey.
transportation networks, and social capital. For instance, they have
This article divides samples into four categories: whites, blacks,
better opportunities of getting information and networks for vehi-
Asians, and Hispanics older than 16. After ruling out cases, which
cles, carpooling, and public transportation systems. This study
have missing information, the final sample includes 108,718 trips.
employs an REI index to measure the racial/ethnic affinities in
This study categorizes travel purposes into six groups: work, school,
neighborhoods. The REI is calculated as follows:
shopping, leisure, home, and other. This study divides travel mode
choices as follows: SD, HCP, ICP, and PT.
Eij Eie
REI ¼ = (1) After analyzing travel patterns according to racial/ethnic groups
Ej Ee and travel purposes, racial/ethnic groups show different results for

Figure 1. Study area.

Source: https://slideplayer.com/slide/10537992/
4 S. YUM
Figure 2. The value of REI (whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics).
travel mode choices (see Table 1). For example, for the purpose of
work, whites, blacks, and Asians show similar patterns, whereas
Hispanics reveal a different pattern. For instance, the three racial/
ethnic groups have the highest share of PT (64.1%, 41.2%, and
41.0%, respectively), ahead of HCP (20.3%, 39.7%, and 36.1%,
respectively), whereas Hispanics demonstrate the highest share of
HCP (40.3%), followed by PT(38.4%).
For the purpose of school, while all racial/ethnic groups exhibit
the highest share of HCP, there are some differences in detail.
Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics have a share of it higher than 50%
(57.1%, 50.2%, and 54.3%, respectively), whereas whites show a low
share of 35.8% in HCP. Also, whites and Asians show a second
highest preference for PT (35.1% and 25.7%, respectively), but
blacks and Hispanics demonstrate the second highest preference
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 5

Table 1. The shares of travel modes according to ravel purposes.

Travel purpose
Work School
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
SD 6.4% 7.2% 9.4% 7.4% 14.8% 7.6% 12.5% 9.4%
HCP 20.3% 39.7% 36.1% 40.3% 35.8% 57.1% 50.2% 54.3%
ICP 9.2% 11.9% 13.5% 13.9% 14.4% 21.3% 11.6% 21.3%
PT 64.1% 41.2% 41.0% 38.4% 35.1% 14.0% 25.7% 15.0%
Shopping Leisure
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
SD 23.4% 15.5% 25.2% 19.0% 23.8% 12.8% 30.5% 14.6%
HCP 10.6% 25.3% 14.8% 26.4% 18.7% 35.8% 19.5% 37.7%
ICP 14.1% 30.0% 20.4% 34.4% 14.7% 27.9% 23.3% 28.6%
PT 51.9% 29.2% 39.6% 20.2% 42.9% 23.5% 26.7% 19.1%
Home Other
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics

SD 53.6% 6.4% 10.1% 9.8% 30.0% 16.6% 38.2% 20.9%

HCP 11.2% 30.4% 26.1% 23.0% 15.3% 38.7% 14.6% 35.0%
ICP 12.9% 25.6% 21.7% 32.8% 10.3% 18.8% 13.9% 22.6%
PT 22.2% 37.6% 42.0% 34.4% 44.4% 26.0% 33.3% 21.5%

for ICP (21.3%). This result shows that blacks and Hispanics are
more likely to carpool for school given that they have the highest
and second highest preference for HCP and ICP.
For the purpose of shopping, whites and Asians show similar
patterns, and blacks and Hispanics are analogous. The former
groups have the highest proportion of PT (51.9% and 39.6%,
respectively), followed by SD (23.4% and 25.2%, respectively). In
contrast, the latter groups show the highest proportion of ICP
(30.0% and 34.4%, respectively), ahead of HCP (25.3% and 26.4%,
respectively), meaning that blacks and Hispanics also prefer car-
pooling for shopping.
For the purpose of leisure, blacks and Hispanics reveal simi-
lar preferences, and other racial/ethnic groups have unique
patterns. Blacks and Hispanics exhibit the highest share of
HCP (35.8% and 37.7%, respectively) and the second highest
share of ICP (27.9% and 28.6%, respectively). In contrast,
whites have the highest share of PT (42.9%), followed by SD
(23.8%), and Asians show the highest share of SD (30.5%),
ahead of PT (26.7%). The result shows that blacks and
Hispanics tend to carpool more than whites and Asians for
leisure consistent with the result of shopping.
For the purpose of home, whites have distinguishable character-
istics from other racial/ethnic groups. For instance, whites exhibit
the highest proportion of SD (53.6%) more than one half and show
the second highest proportion of PT (22.2%). In contrast, the others
show the lowest proportion of SD (6.4%, 10.1%, and 9.8%, respec-
tively) and reveal the highest share of PT (37.6%, 42.0%, and 34.4%,
respectively). Also, blacks and Asians have the second highest
proportion of HCP (30.4% and 26.1%, respectively), and
Hispanics demonstrate the second highest proportion of
ICP (32.8%).
For other purposes, the racial/ethnic groups show biggest dif-
ferent patterns among purposes. First, whites show the highest
share of PT with a percentage of 44.4, followed by SD (30.0%),
and blacks have the highest share of HCP with 38.7%, ahead of PT
(26.0%). Asians reveal the highest share of SD (38.2%), followed by
PT (33.3%), and Hispanics show the highest share of HCP (35.0%),
ahead of ICP (22.6%). The findings show that Hispanics tend to
carpool, whereas whites and Asians are reluctant to do carpooling
for other purposes.
To sum up, this study finds that blacks and Hispanics are more
likely to carpool than Whites and Asians and travel mode choices
are differentiated by travel purposes. This study highlights how soft
variables play an important role in travel mode choices when hard
variables are controlled by employing multinomial logit models in
the next section.
Multinomial logit results
This study employs 24 multinomial logit models to explore how soft
variables, as well as hard variables, play an important role in travel
mode choices according to racial/ethnic groups and travel pur-
poses. The multinomial logit models provide a convenient closed
form for the underlying choice probabilities without any require-
ment of multivariate integration (Hausman and Mcfadden 1984).
The multinomial logit models are one of the most commonly used
regression models for nominal outcomes in academic fields (see e.g.
Adams, Wilson, and Wang 1997; Cheng and Long 2007; Fiebig et al.
2010; McFadden 1978; Yaylali, Çelik, and Dilek 2016). The multi-
nomial logit models in this article are as follows:
Y = f (R, G, A, E, L, H, I, N, D)
where R = vector of the REI index, G = vector of gender, A = vector of
age, E = vector of employment, L = vector of license, H = vector of
household size, I = vector of income, N = vector of the number of
vehicles, and D = vector of regional dummies. The dependent vari-
able of this study is a four-category variable: SD, HCP, ICP, and PT.
After running 24 multinomial logit models, the travel mode
choices are differentiated by travel purposes (see Table 2–7). To
be specific, for the purpose of work, each racial/ethnic group shows
different characteristics for travel mode choices. whites are less
likely to choose ICP (−0.273), blacks and Asians are more apt to
use it (0.218 and 0.523, respectively), and Hispanics do not show
a preference for it in high racial/ethnic affinities. This result shows
that racial/ethnic affinities play a different role in ICP according to
racial/ethnic groups. Blacks are also less inclined to choose HCP
(−0.297). Whites and Hispanics tend not to use PT (−0.428 and
−0.493, respectively), whereas Asians prefer PT (0.322) in high
racial/ethnic affinities. White males are less prone to take HCP
6 S. YUM

Table 2. Travel mode choices for work.

Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
Reference (SD) HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT
Intercept ***16.809 ***15.717 ***15.01 ***13.109 ***17.964 ***16.86 −3.941 −4.750 7.176 0.364 10.941 −19.242
REI > 1.5 0.067 ***-0.273 ***-0.428 **-0.297 **0.218 −0.119 −0.151 ***0.523 **0.322 −0.177 0.094 ***-0.493
Male ***-0.492 ***0.299 ***0.301 ***-0.435 0.111 −0.175 ***-0.483 −0.091 0.120 ***-0.789 0.162 0.103
Age (reference: 65+)
16–18 −0.380 −0.396 −0.077 ***4.376 −2.152 −2.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 −16.096 *-1.91 **-2.697
19–24 *-0.303 ***0.361 ***0.661 **1.865 **-0.797 −0.487 −0.724 **-1.26 1.325 −0.666 0.191 −0.787
25–34 −0.119 ***0.294 ***0.464 ***2.567 −0.297 −0.525 −0.457 −0.379 *1.74 −0.139 0.433 −0.042
35–54 −0.155 0.036 **0.256 *1.906 **-0.57 ***-0.759 *-1.072 −0.699 1.336 −0.479 0.206 −0.127
55–64 ***-0.423 −0.042 0.162 *1.744 **-0.541 ***-0.845 −0.685 **-0.984 0.988 −0.953 0.111 −0.240
Employment ***-1.023 ***-0.397 ***-0.496 1.244 −0.252 ***-0.944 14.476 14.875 −0.714 12.796 1.001 15.807
License ***-17.567 ***-17.884 −17.824 ***-17.287 ***-19.134 −18.975 −12.927 −13.478 −13.424 −13.195 −14.129 −13.823
Household size
(reference: 4+)
1 ***-5.061 ***-1.002 ***-1.192 ***-4.995 −0.211 0.029 ***-4.696 ***-1.53 ***-1.037 −14.757 ***-1.066 ***-1.459
2 ***-1.126 ***-0.197 ***-0.21 ***-0.895 ***-0.37 −0.247 ***-1.02 *-0.279 *-0.38 ***-0.877 0.203 0.018
3 ***-0.287 **-0.097 −0.093 **-0.465 −0.225 **-0.531 ***-0.584 ***-0.547 **-0.468 −0.453 −0.044 −0.316
Income (reference:
$100K+)
Below $30K 0.176 ***-1.086 ***-1.108 −0.258 ***-0.87 ***-0.651 ***-1.461 ***-1.223 ***-1.128 −0.091 −0.052 0.375
$30K – $74.9K ***-0.196 ***-0.808 ***-0.908 −0.074 *-0.217 −0.180 ***-0.6 ***-0.663 ***-0.535 0.040 ***-0.673 **-0.518
$75K – $99.9K *-0.121 ***-0.443 ***-0.504 0.100 ***-0.389 ***-0.88 ***-0.592 ***-0.438 ***-0.708 0.339 −0.257 0.071
Number of Household
Vehicles (reference:
3+)
1 ***2.622 ***6.619 ***7.499 **2.267 ***6.827 ***6.766 ***4.861 ***7.009 ***7.368 0.571 ***4.957 ***5.051
2 ***1.772 ***2.159 ***2.661 ***0.69 ***1.089 ***0.934 ***1.911 ***2.178 ***2.324 ***1.664 ***1.747 ***1.635
3 ***0.717 ***0.501 ***0.419 0.163 **0.348 −0.133 ***0.963 ***0.503 0.409 *0.457 **0.509 −0.478
Regional dummy
(reference:
Connecticut)
New York **-0.187 ***0.918 ***0.396 0.078 ***0.972 ***2.056 **2.03 ***3.146 ***3.728 ***-1.051 *0.838 15.838
New Jersey −0.048 ***0.415 ***-0.307 −0.352 −0.032 0.666 **1.83 ***2.589 **2.255 ***-1.525 −0.055 15.008
N 37,313 3664 2712 2252
−2 Log Likelihood 14,965 3675 2863 2580
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.402 0.535 0.475 0.544
Note: *** <0.01 **<0.05 *< 0.1

(−0.492) and are more likely to use ICP and PT (0.299 and 0.301,
respectively). Black and Hispanic males indicate a lower likelihood
of HCP (−0.435 and −0.789, respectively). Age groups are largely
associated with blacks and barely related to Hispanics. For instance,
younger blacks have a higher possibility of HCP, whereas Hispanics
aged between 19–64 do not show any preference for travel mode
choices. White workers are less apt to use carpooling and PT, and
black workers are less inclined to take PT. Whites and blacks with
a driver’s license decrease the likelihood of carpooling. Generally
speaking, all racial/ethnic groups with a bigger family have a higher
probability of SD over other means of transportation, and those
who earn a higher income are more inclined to use SD than
carpooling and PT. The number of household vehicles is relatively
related to whites, and all racial/ethnic groups with a smaller number
of vehicles tend to choose other means of transportation. Asians are
more likely to carpool and use PT in New York and New Jersey.
For the purpose of school, blacks and Hispanics show a negative
coefficient value for HCP (−0.925 and −3.087, respectively), whites
and Asians are irrelevant to travel mode choices in high racial/ethnic
affinities. Hispanics are negatively associated with ICP (−2.613),
meaning that Hispanics living in high racial/ethnic affinities tend to
choose SD rather than carpooling. Younger whites prefer to use HCP
and are mostly reluctant to use ICP and PT, whereas younger blacks
are more apt to choose HCP, ICP, and PT. Asians and Hispanics do
not show any preference for the travel modes according to age
variables. White workers are less prone to choose HCP, ICP, and
PT. Black and Hispanic workers are less apt to use ICP and PT,
whereas Asians tend to use them. Whites and blacks who possess
a license are more likely to choose SD over other means of transpor-
tation. Whites are associated with household size more than other
groups, and those who have a higher number of the household
generally show a negative relationship with HCP, ICP, and PT.
Whites and blacks earning a higher income tend to choose SD,
whereas Asians and Hispanics are less affected by the income.
Whites prefer to use other means of transportation, whereas Asians
reveal a higher likelihood of SD in New York and New Jersey.
For the purpose of shopping, in high racial/ethnic affinities, only
Hispanics show a positive coefficient value for HCP and ICP (0.882
and 0.590, respectively). This result shows that racial/ethnic affinities
play an important role in carpooling for Hispanics. Whites have
a negative predisposition toward PT (−0.739), whereas Asians and
Hispanics prefer to take PT (1.255 and 0.770, respectively) in high
racial/ethnic affinities. All males regardless of their racial/ethnic groups
are more likely to use PT, and younger whites, blacks, and Asians also
tend to take PT. Black workers are more inclined to choose SD. Whites
and Hispanics who possess a license are more apt to choose SD rather
than carpooling. A smaller number of families are less prone to ride
ICP across racial/ethnic groups. Whites prefer to take HCP, and blacks
tend to use ICP when their income decreases. Whites and blacks with
a smaller number of vehicles have a more positive predisposition
toward PT. Whites, blacks, and Asians have a higher possibility of
taking PT in New York.
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 7

Table 3. Travel mode choices for school.

Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
Reference (SD) HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT
Intercept ***-14.819 ***3.689 **2.309 ***-22.725 ***-34.325 ***-34.311 15.339 13.985 −10.296 −1.772 2.542 −0.943
REI > 1.5 0.012 −0.023 −0.228 *-0.925 −0.350 −0.230 −0.700 0.751 0.731 ***-3.087 **-2.613 −2.731
Male **-0.28 −0.137 ***0.474 −0.748 0.071 0.158 −0.883 **-1.913 −0.641 0.267 *1.591 1.272
Age* (reference: 65+)
16–18 ***18.837 0.675 −0.267 ***24.118 ***36.281 ***35.677 17.702 16.011 27.831 −1.120 −3.441 −2.996
19–24 ***17.102 *-0.728 **-1.013 ***22.606 ***36.065 ***34.991 2.392 10.958 22.188 −3.518 −2.817 −2.857
25–34 ***17.448 **-0.969 **-1.055 ***23.465 ***35.722 ***34.782 1.949 12.350 26.655 −2.718 −3.826 −3.870
35–54 ***17.458 −0.621 ***-1.402 ***23.543 ***35.616 ***34.379 14.483 8.139 20.256 −0.719 −1.577 −1.911
55–64 17.902 ***-1.556 ***-1.591 23.325 36.165 33.749
Employment ***-0.976 **-0.292 ***-0.499 −0.113 *-0.936 ***-1.558 1.475 **1.888 ***3.681 −0.782 ***-2.503 **-2.226
License ***-5.276 ***-5.623 ***-5.482 ***-2.191 ***-3.932 ***-3.869 −15.674 −12.857 −12.869 −12.039 −14.132 −13.744
Household size
(reference: 4+)
1 −19.780 ***-1.22 ***-2.302 −0.644 1.328 0.812 −0.241 −16.636 −19.185 −16.379 −12.835 −14.528
2 ***-1.347 ***-0.788 ***-1.429 **-1.845 *-1.166 **-1.403 −0.756 **-3.095 **-3.329 **-3.674 ***-4.136 ***-4.16
3 ***-0.623 ***-0.368 *-0.292 0.514 −0.493 −0.113 ***3.119 1.180 −0.642 0.820 1.522 0.580
Income (reference:
$100K+)
Below $30K **-0.525 ***-1.014 ***-1.007 −0.742 **-2.015 *-1.552 −9.927 −1.485 −1.595 −0.825 *2.641 2.119
$30K – $74.9K ***-0.442 ***-0.38 **-0.442 −0.748 **-1.343 −0.482 **2.429 0.724 0.887 0.397 0.700 1.169
$75K – $99.9K −0.238 −0.092 0.075 **-2.075 ***-1.913 *-1.821 0.287 −0.344 0.131 1.676 *2.874 2.695
Number of Household
Vehicles (reference:
3+)
1 2.913 ***22.632 24.526 1.176 ***5.736 ***4.917 16.460 32.835 41.869 12.466 24.187 27.380
2 ***2.262 ***2.439 ***3.887 ***2.372 ***3.98 ***3.229 **5.071 ***8.312 16.287 ***7.683 ***7.36 ***9.766
3 ***1.299 ***1.155 ***1.768 *1.273 ***1.803 0.737 ***5.967 ***5.851 10.530 *2.437 1.743 4.698
Regional dummy
(reference:
Connecticut)
New York **0.841 ***1.404 ***1.253 1.248 ***2.443 **2.175 ***-22.125 ***-17.438 ***-15.915 ***13.17 ***11.466 ***10.972
New Jersey ***1.013 ***0.968 **0.969 1.467 *1.51 ***2.281 ***-23.244 ***-19.477 −15.466 13.912 11.863 12.831
N 3381 571 280 400
−2 Log Likelihood 3807 692 221 416
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.570 0.586 0.825 0.713
Note: *** <0.01 **<0.05 *< 0.1. The age reference for Asians and Hispanics is 55–64 given no sample in 65 +

For the purpose of leisure, whites and Hispanics living in high racial/
ethnic affinities show a negative preference for HCP (−0.168 and
−1.110, respectively), whites also reveal a negative coefficient value for
ICP (−0.106). In contrast, blacks and Asians do not have any preference
for the travel mode. While whites are negatively related to PT, other
racial/ethnic groups are unrelated to it. White males tend not to car-
pool, and black males demonstrate a negative coefficient value for HCP.
Younger whites and Asians are less likely to choose HCP. Hispanic
workers also show a negative probability of HCP. Whites, blacks, and
Hispanics with a license are less apt to carpool. Whites are not inclined
to carpool, and Asians have a lower probability of choosing ICP and PT
when they have a small number of the household. All racial/ethnic
groups are less related to the income, but they are more associated with
the number of household vehicles. Whites, blacks, and Asians living in
New York tend to use PT.
For the purpose of home, only whites show some significant
results, whereas other racial/ethnic groups are not significant,
which may be because of the small sample size. Whites living in
high racial/ethnic affinities are not associated with travel mode
choices. White males are less inclined to choose ICP and PT.
Younger whites indicate a lower likelihood of HCP and PT, and
white workers also are less likely to choose them. Whites who have
a license are less prone to take carpool. A number of households are
not related to carpool, but a smaller number of households are
generally associated with the negative preference of PT. Income
variables do not display particular tendencies, and whites who have
less than two vehicles tend to use other means of transportation.
Whites living in New Jersey are more likely to use HCP.
For other purposes, only whites in high racial/ethnic affinities tend
not to use HCP and ICP (−0.082 and −0.193, respectively) as well as
PT (−0.638). In contrast, Asians and Hispanics prefer to ride PT
(0.474 and 0.573, respectively). White males are less likely to choose
other means of transportation, all males regardless of racial/ethnic
groups are less inclined to use PT. Younger whites are more prone to
use ICP and PT. Black and Hispanic workers are more apt to take PT.
Whites who possess a license reveal a lower likelihood of other means
of transportation, and Hispanics with the license are less inclined to
carpool. Blacks and Hispanics in a smaller number of families are less
likely to choose HCP, whites and Hispanics in that condition
decrease the likelihood of PT. Whites prefer to use PT, and
Hispanics tend to use HCP when they have a small number of
household vehicles. Whites, blacks, and Hispanics indicate a higher
likelihood of ICP, Asians tend not to take PT, but Hispanics are more
inclined to ride PT in New York and New Jersey.
One of the most important findings in this research is that while
Liu and Painter (2012) argue that living in ethnic neighborhoods
increases both the likelihood of carpooling and of taking public
transit, this study finds that living in ethnic neighborhoods plays
a different role in them across race/ethnicity and travel purposes.
This may be because their research is only designed for Latino
immigrants and commuting to work, whereas this study considers
all racial/ethnic groups and travel purposes. This finding suggests
8 S. YUM

Table 4. Travel mode choices for shopping.

Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
Reference (SD) HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT
Intercept ***16.481 ***15.4 ***12.668 15.929 15.471 −3.527 17.723 −1.837 12.687 ***18.903 ***16.65 ***15.111
REI > 1.5 0.036 −0.034 ***-0.739 0.010 −0.249 **-0.498 0.088 −0.111 ***1.255 ***0.882 *0.59 **0.77
Male −0.014 ***-0.352 **0.178 0.245 −0.090 ***0.662 0.381 −0.197 **0.846 −0.170 −0.283 ***0.951
Age (reference: 65+)
16–18 **0.689 ***1.679 0.644 1.429 1.980 0.091 19.644 1.308 0.484 ***9.915 ***11.944 12.605
19–24 0.105 ***1.235 ***0.928 ***1.848 **1.475 ***1.698 *1.844 ***3.821 ***3.96 −1.045 0.024 −0.772
25–34 ***0.642 ***0.91 ***1.404 0.350 0.455 ***2.173 0.371 **1.547 ***3.278 **-0.995 *-0.992 −0.904
35–54 −0.116 0.143 ***0.664 −0.312 0.037 **0.718 −0.225 **1.49 **1.411 **-1.123 −0.463 *-0.838
55–64 *-0.114 −0.040 ***0.392 −0.076 *0.425 ***0.914 0.480 0.927 **1.66 ***-1.198 −0.416 −0.725
Employment ***-0.205 0.005 0.056 ***-0.711 ***-0.679 ***-0.736 0.374 −0.281 −0.471 −0.029 *0.493 **0.705
License ***-17.008 ***-17.58 −17.552 −16.621 −18.137 −18.281 −17.243 −17.225 −18.909 ***-18.265 ***-18.397 −19.127
Household size (reference:
4+)
1 −18.347 ***-0.862 ***-1.019 −19.271 ***-1.146 **-0.671 −18.219 **-1.63 −0.990 −19.273 *-0.995 −0.607
2 ***-0.444 −0.168 −0.117 ***-0.905 ***-0.812 −0.321 ***-1.667 0.061 **-1.051 −0.200 *-0.751 −0.494
3 ***-0.373 ***-0.334 0.192 −0.049 −0.525 **0.718 ***-0.89 **-1.229 ***-1.998 0.238 −0.229 0.144
Income (reference: $100K
+)
Below $30K ***0.331 **0.265 −0.174 ***-1.219 **1.001 0.101 *0.885 −0.036 0.625 ***-1.16 ***1.116 ***1.41
$30K – $74.9K ***0.398 *0.149 ***-0.281 ***-0.917 ***1.172 −0.276 −0.082 **0.923 0.563 −0.291 0.546 0.560
$75K – $99.9K ***0.272 0.136 ***0.382 −0.385 **1.042 −0.317 *-0.692 −0.654 −0.629 **1.037 **-2.558 0.558
Number of Household
Vehicles (reference: 3+)
1 0.241 ***5.548 ***8.218 ***1.78 ***4.39 ***5.451 −0.201 18.987 19.893 −15.391 ***4.269 ***5.911
2 ***0.611 ***0.977 ***3.169 ***1.42 ***1.645 ***2.603 0.148 −0.061 1.163 **0.797 0.117 ***1.885
3 ***0.297 −0.009 ***1.115 0.303 0.206 *1.154 **-0.74 *-0.995 0.061 **0.93 0.413 0.737
Regional dummy
(reference: Connecticut)
New York −0.072 0.236 ***1.197 ***1.246 0.429 ***18.934 −0.850 ***17.129 1.810 −0.654 0.891 0.635
New Jersey −0.093 −0.026 0.262 0.630 −0.196 17.109 −0.278 16.471 0.601 −0.479 0.011 −0.678
N 12,340 1667 591.000 915
−2 Log Likelihood 11,490 2352 865 1135
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.496 0.656 0.675 0.705
Note: *** <0.01 **<0.05 *< 0.1

that scholars should explore the effect of enclaves on travel mode
choices according to race/ethnicity and travel purposes.
Conclusions
This study explores how soft variables play an important role in
travel mode choices in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut
metropolitan area, using the 2010/2011 Regional Household
Travel Survey (RHTS) and the US Census Bureau. In order to
highlight the relationship between soft variables and travel mode
choices, the study analyzes the patterns of 108,718 trips by employ-
ing 24 multinomial logit models.
This article finds some important implications for transporta-
tion literature. First, the results of this study highlight that racial/
ethnic affinities play a different role in travel mode choices accord-
ing to racial/ethnic groups and travel purposes. For instance, in
high racial/ethnic affinities, whites especially show negative prefer-
ences for carpooling. They are less likely to use ICP for work as well
as HCP and ICP for leisure and other purposes, meaning that
whites prefer to drive alone more than other racial/ethnic groups.
Also, they are the only group showing a negative coefficient value
for carpooling in other purposes among racial/ethnic groups.
Blacks in high racial/ethnic affinities are less apt to choose HCP
and more likely to use ICP for work, and they are less inclined to
take HCP for school. Asians tend to use ICP for work and are not
related to travel mode choices in other five purposes. Also, Asians
are the least affected group according to racial/ethnic affinities.
Hispanics are positively related to HCP and ICP for shopping,
whereas they show a negative possibility of those for school. They
also have a negative preference for HCP for leisure.
The results mean that racial/ethnic affinities play the most sig-
nificant role in whites with a negative effect for carpooling, whereas
they exert the least impact on Asians except for ICP in the purpose
of work. This result shows that the general assumption is wrong,
that is, living in racial/ethnic neighborhoods has a positive impact
on carpooling because of their racial/ethnic affinities. This study
also finds that hard variables, such as the age, job, license, and so on,
play a different role in travel behavior according to travel purposes.
One of the interesting findings of this research is that racial/ethnic
affinities play a negative role in carpooling for whites, unlike other
racial/ethnic groups. Future research should highlight how and why
they are differently associated with whites and minority groups.
Discussion
This study provides some specific recommendations for decision
and policy makers. First, given that the findings of this article are
only based on the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan
area, they should further explore how soft variables play an impor-
tant role in travel modes in other metropolitan areas. The more
findings of soft variables would provide a solid foundation for
developing policies. For instance, decision and policy makers in
other metropolitan areas, such as Caltrans (California Department
of Transportation) and ARC (Atlanta Regional Commission),
should explore the effects of soft variables on travel mode choices
and compare their results with the findings of this article.
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 9

Table 5. Travel mode choices for leisure.

Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
Reference (SD) HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT
Intercept ***17.293 ***16.007 ***13.836 ***17.577 ***17.107 ***16.142 16.459 −4.540 −17.755 ***18.424 ***15.823 ***16.034
REI > 1.5 ***-0.168 *-0.106 ***-0.337 −0.100 −0.275 *-0.376 −0.241 −0.157 −0.222 ***-1.11 0.392 0.461
Male ***-0.158 ***-0.336 0.072 ***-0.633 −0.260 −0.310 0.011 0.148 0.268 0.017 0.205 −0.200
Age (reference: 65+)
16–18 ***-0.401 ***0.547 0.126 0.177 −1.092 0.023 ***-2.105 −0.487 −0.770 −0.596 0.064 −0.585
19–24 ***-0.681 ***0.679 ***0.73 −0.121 0.745 **1.051 ***-2.54 *-2.071 ***-3.203 −18.637 1.096 0.743
25–34 ***-0.488 −0.073 ***0.536 −0.080 0.201 0.283 *-0.806 ***-1.516 ***-1.551 −0.416 0.730 0.672
35–54 −0.070 0.084 ***0.363 −0.214 0.118 0.460 **-1.185 −0.513 **-1.081 0.497 0.420 0.011
55–64 ***-0.227 −0.073 0.100 −0.269 0.176 0.222 −0.038 −0.564 −0.055 **-1.203 −0.029 −0.413
Employment −0.066 −0.051 0.077 −0.001 −0.029 −0.044 0.270 ***0.967 0.440 *-0.616 0.263 −0.376
License ***-17.257 ***-17.081 −17.189 ***-17.937 ***-19.133 −18.630 −15.368 −16.233 −16.381 ***-17.258 ***-18.712 −18.684
Household size
(reference: 4+)
1 ***-5.895 ***-0.988 ***-1.564 −19.529 −0.344 −0.270 −18.436 ***-2.507 ***-3.798 −20.027 ***-2.25 ***-2.361
2 ***-0.771 ***-0.256 ***-0.478 **-0.61 **-0.537 −0.404 ***-1.274 **-1.015 ***-1.746 0.547 −0.179 −0.136
3 ***-0.345 ***-0.322 −0.091 −0.378 0.242 −0.007 −0.485 ***-1.3 ***-1.661 −0.513 ***-1.22 **-1.026
Income (reference:
$100K+)
Below $30K 0.058 0.021 ***-0.313 −0.572 ***1.247 *0.619 −0.825 0.377 0.145 −0.178 0.662 0.412
$30K – $74.9K −0.004 −0.067 ***-0.378 −0.382 0.477 0.081 0.366 0.559 −0.073 −0.057 **0.871 *0.755
$75K – $99.9K ***0.231 −0.096 −0.141 0.271 0.400 0.085 −0.275 **0.901 0.320 −0.018 0.423 0.605
Number of Household
Vehicles (reference:
3+)
1 ***2.28 ***5.437 ***7.632 **2.824 ***5.771 ***6.2 *1.85 ***5.975 21.749 **3.285 ***6.933 ***6.725
2 ***0.624 ***0.904 ***2.781 ***1.052 ***1.212 ***1.097 ***1.224 ***2.896 18.115 ***1.523 ***2.816 ***2.925
3 ***0.427 0.029 ***0.969 0.103 0.391 0.243 0.034 0.605 16.214 *0.752 **1.535 0.387
Regional dummy
(reference:
Connecticut)
New York ***-0.204 ***0.313 ***0.956 0.340 0.493 *1.113 0.407 ***19.083 ***18.768 −1.005 0.201 0.714
New Jersey 0.054 0.134 ***0.572 0.480 −0.115 0.484 0.220 18.887 17.685 *-1.694 −0.489 −0.175
N 16235 1450 671 876
−2 Log Likelihood 15656 2121 1077 1251
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.4 0.562 0.579 0.604
Note: *** <0.01 **<0.05 *< 0.1

Second, while most local governments have their own transpor-
tation institute, develop data sets, and publish transportation
reports, they do not seriously take soft variables into account for
their analysis. For instance, when this article investigates their
transportation reports (21 reports in the Transportation Security
Data Center in the US), They heavily focus on hard variables, such
as gender, age, or income, to report travel patterns of people in the
region. Decision and policy makers should strongly argue the
importance of soft variables given that prior transportation litera-
ture as well as this study find that soft variables play an important
role in travel behavior of individuals.
Third, this study provides specific implications for understanding
the travel mode choices by dividing various explanatory categories.
Especially, the findings of this article play a crucial role in improving
the mobility of different racial/ethnic, social groups, and equity. For
instance, the multinomial logit models in this article show the relation-
ship between low-income minority groups and travel mode choices.
To be specific, low-income black families (below $30k) are more apt to
use ICP for leisure, and low-income Hispanic families are more like to
choose ICP for school (2.641) and shopping (1.116). In contrast, low-
income Asian families do not show any preference for ICP. Also, this
study provides some important implications for different social groups,
such as females, elderly, or unemployed people by presenting 24 multi-
nomial logit models. Urban planners and practitioners could develop
transportation policy for different social groups and communities to
encourage other means of transportation against car use. For instance,
they could design ICP programs for white females for shopping, Asian
females for school, and Hispanic females for other purposes(males:
-0.352, -1.913, and -0.541, respectively).
Fourth, this study finds that racial/ethnic affinities play a different
role in travel mode choices according to race/ethnicity. Therefore,
decision and policy makers should first research the characteristics of
neighborhoods for community planning to encourage sustainable
development. For instance, they should design ICP programs for
commuting to work in black and Asian communities (REI>1.5)
since the two groups show a positive preference for ICP in the
purpose of work (0.218 and 0.523, respectively).
Fifth, while prior studies simply divide explanatory variables,
such as racial/ethnic groups (whites, blacks, and Asians), travel
modes (solo driving, carpool, and transit), travel purposes (com-
muting and non-commuting), this study delicately designs inde-
pendent variables, such as racial/ethnic groups (whites, blacks,
Asians, and Hispanics living in racial/ethnic affinities and those
living outside racial/ethnic affinities), travel modes (solo driving,
HCP, ICP, and transit), and travel purposes (work, school, shop-
ping, leisure, home, and others). The findings of this article allow
decision and policy makers to understand complex situations of the
race/ethnicity, travel modes, and travel purposes to encourage
ridesharing and public transit for sustainable development against
car use. For instance, this study could highlight that low-income
Hispanic families are less likely to use HCP (−1.160) and are more
apt to choose ICP (1.116) for shopping by employing a multitude of
racial/ethnic groups, travel modes, and travel purposes, whereas
prior studies, which use a carpool category and binary travel
10 S. YUM

Table 6. Travel mode choices for home.

Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
Reference (SD) HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT
Intercept ***15.181 ***17.021 ***17.489
REI > 1.5 0.099 −0.057 0.414
Male −0.282 **-0.502 ***-0.84
Age (reference: 65+)
16–18 0.461 0.378 *-2.168
19–24 **-1.681 −0.623 −0.921
25–34 *-0.928 −0.800 −0.394
35–54 −0.492 −0.363 **-0.775
55–64 **-0.885 −0.639 ***-0.893
Employment **-0.704 0.044 **-0.572
License ***-17.08 ***-18.928 −18.312
Household size (reference: 4+)
1 −18.235 −0.412 **-1.002
2 −0.358 −0.209 0.195
3 −0.469 0.556 **-0.853
Income (reference: $100K+)
Below $30K 0.050 −0.177 0.253
$30K – $74.9K −0.240 **0.681 *0.478
$75K – $99.9K ***-1.519 −0.708 *-0.703
Number of Household Vehicles (reference: 3+)
1 ***3.244 ***4.093 ***5.305
2 ***1.134 ***1.416 ***1.752
3 0.283 0.103 0.439
Regional dummy (reference: Connecticut)
New York 1.358 0.725 0.215
New Jersey *1.917 −0.766 −0.066
N 811
−2 Log Likelihood 1262
Significance 0.000
Pseudo R2 　 0.485
Note: *** <0.01 **<0.05 *< 0.1. The results of the three groups are not reported since they are insignificant.

Table 7. Travel mode choices for other purposes.

Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics
Reference (SD) HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT HCP ICP PT
Intercept ***5.364 ***4.038 ***3.086 15.983 15.349 12.605 16.966 1.188 14.901 ***17.991 ***15.81 ***13.893
REI > 1.5 *-0.082 ***-0.193 ***-0.638 0.160 0.040 0.003 0.023 0.274 *0.474 −0.126 0.152 **0.573
Male ***-0.158 ***-0.195 ***-0.163 −0.039 −0.013 *-0.283 *-0.315 0.291 ***-1.131 −0.146 ***-0.541 ***-0.672
Age (reference: 65+)
16–18 *0.342 ***0.658 ***0.789 0.105 **1.274 3.283 −0.218 −1.487 1.166 −0.515 −1.083 −1.133
19–24 **-0.297 ***0.461 0.011 0.261 ***1.216 **1.085 −17.387 0.669 **2.787 0.140 0.332 −0.194
25–34 0.076 ***0.569 ***0.921 −0.361 ***1.077 ***2.095 *-0.758 *-1.05 −0.181 0.330 0.245 0.567
35–54 −0.082 ***0.251 ***0.572 −0.065 *0.4 ***0.827 **-0.813 −0.321 −0.231 0.152 −0.176 −0.405
55–64 ***-0.322 *0.128 ***0.317 ***-0.588 **0.464 ***0.942 ***-1.434 −0.412 −0.301 −0.347 −0.008 −0.574
Employment −0.051 −0.036 0.074 −0.008 0.169 **0.436 0.062 0.058 0.150 −0.081 0.211 ***0.686
License ***-5.393 ***-6.019 ***-6.258 −16.928 −18.230 −17.993 −15.519 −17.421 −16.939 ***-17.636 ***-19.031 −18.925
Household size (reference: 4+)
1 ***-6.55 ***-0.463 ***-1.429 ***-4.275 **0.591 −0.332 −16.612 0.105 *-0.854 −19.394 −0.162 ***-1.086
2 ***-0.934 0.055 ***-0.883 ***-0.553 0.250 −0.336 **-0.634 −0.512 ***-1.082 ***-1.416 0.034 ***-1.635
3 ***-0.42 ***-0.241 ***-0.534 **-0.485 **0.448 **0.567 **-0.373 −0.476 ***-1.113 ***-0.603 −0.013 *-0.501
Income (reference: $100K+)
Below $30K **0.199 0.056 ***-0.335 *-0.415 0.403 ***1.003 0.441 0.456 0.658 0.344 ***1.162 ***1.4
$30K – $74.9K **0.097 **0.125 0.013 0.150 *0.393 **0.736 0.176 0.084 −0.128 −0.015 *0.588 0.617
$75K – $99.9K **0.115 ***0.199 **0.172 *0.37 0.113 0.115 0.068 **-0.989 **-0.817 −0.168 −0.410 0.722
Number of Household
Vehicles (reference: 3+)
1 0.586 ***4.446 ***5.881 ***2.963 ***5.342 ***7.09 0.539 18.393 21.989 **2.069 ***4.601 ***6.721
2 ***0.792 ***0.572 ***2.291 ***0.802 0.368 **1.232 *0.495 ***1.003 ***4.218 ***0.831 0.593 ***2.335
3 ***0.318 −0.060 ***0.532 *0.352 **-0.541 0.764 0.218 −0.471 ***2.474 *0.547 0.105 0.875
Regional dummy (reference:
Connecticut)
New York 0.068 ***0.531 ***0.82 0.255 **0.921 **1.104 −0.564 ***14.971 **-1.399 −0.398 ***1.928 ***1.846
New Jersey 0.049 **0.312 0.166 **0.722 **0.773 0.464 −0.481 15.232 ***-2.598 −0.490 ***1.595 **1.296
N 17219 2513 1164 1447
−2 Log Likelihood 14034 3004 1398 1875
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.317 0.601 0.486 0.608
Note: *** <0.01 **<0.05 *< 0.1

purposes (commuting vs non-commuting), cannot highlight the
findings. The results and findings suggest that decision and policy
makers should develop their transportation program by consider-
ing various racial/ethnic groups, travel modes, and travel purposes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Adams, R. J., M. Wilson, and W. C. Wang. 1997. “The Multidimensional
Random Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model.” Applied Psychological
Measurement 21 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1177/0146621697211001.
Angueira, J., K. C. Konduri, V. Chakour, and N. Eluru. 2019. “Exploring the
Relationship between Vehicle Type Choice and Distance Traveled: A Latent
Segmentation Approach.” Transportation Letters 11 (3): 146–157.
doi:10.1080/19427867.2017.1299346.
Bento, A., M. Cropper, A. Mobarak, and K. Vinha. 2003. The Impact of Urban
Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States. World Bank.
Bhat, C. R. 1998. “Analysis of Travel Mode and Departure Time Choice for
Urban Shopping Trips.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.
Washington, D.C. 32 (6): 361–371. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(98)00004-6.
Bhat, C. R. 2000. “Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in
Urban Work Travel Mode Choice Modeling.” Transportation Science 34 (2):
228–238. doi:10.1287/trsc.34.2.228.12306.
Blumenberg, E. 2009. “Moving in and Moving Around: Immigrants, Travel
Behavior, and Implications for Transport Policy.” Transportation Letters 1
(2): 169–180. doi:10.3328/TL.2009.01.02.169-180.
Blumenberg, E., and G. Pierce. 2014. “Multimodal Travel and the Poor: Evidence
from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey.” Transportation Letters 6
(1): 36–45. doi:10.1179/1942787513Y.0000000009.
Blumenberg, E., and M. Smart. 2009. “Travel in The’hood: Ethnic
Neighborhoods and Mode Choice.” UCTC research paper no 891: 1–21.
Blumenberg, E., and M. Smart. 2010. “Getting by with a Little Help from My
Friends . . . and Family: Immigrants and Carpooling.” Transportation 37 (3):
429–446. doi:10.1007/s11116-010-9262-4.
Boarnet, M. G., and S. Sarmiento. 1998. “Can Land-use Policy Really Affect
Travel Behaviour? A Study of the Link between Non-work Travel and
Land-use Characteristics.” Urban Studies 35 (7): 1155–1169. doi:10.1080/
0042098984538.
Charles, C. Z. 2000. “Neighborhood Racial-composition Preferences: Evidence
from a Multiethnic Metropolis.” Social Problems 47 (3): 379–407.
doi:10.2307/3097236.
Chatman, D. G. 2003. “How Density and Mixed Uses at the Workplace Affect
Personal Commercial Travel and Commute Mode Choice.” Transportation
Research Record 1831 (1): 193–201. doi:10.3141/1831-22.
Cheng, S., and J. S. Long. 2007. “Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit
Model.” Sociological Methods & Research 35 (4): 583–600. doi:10.1177/
0049124106292361.
Chorus, C. 2012. “What about Behaviour in Travel Demand Modelling? an
Overview of Recent Progress.” Transportation Letters 4 (2): 93–104.
doi:10.3328/TL.2012.04.02.93-104.
Dieleman, F. M., M. Dijst, and G. Burghouwt. 2002. “Urban Form and Travel
Behaviour: Micro-level Household Attributes and Residential Context.”
Urban Studies 39 (3): 507–527.
Ellis, M., R. Wright, and V. Parks. 2006. “The Immigrant Household and Spatial
Assimilation: Partnership, Nativity, and Neighborhood Location.” Urban
Geography 27 (1): 1–19. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.27.1.1.
Eluru, N., V. Chakour, and A. M. El-Geneidy. 2012. “Travel Mode Choice and
Transit Route Choice Behavior in Montreal: Insights from McGill University
Members Commute Patterns.” Public Transport 4 (2): 129–149. doi:10.1007/
s12469-012-0056-2.
Emerson, M. O., K. J. Chai, and G. Yancey. 2001. “Does Race Matter in
Residential Segregation? Exploring the Preferences of White Americans.”
American Sociological Review 66: 922–935. doi:10.2307/3088879.
Fiebig, D. G., M. P. Keane, J. Louviere, and N. Wasi. 2010. “The Generalized
Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient
Heterogeneity.” Marketing Science 29 (3): 393–421. doi:10.1287/
mksc.1090.0508.
Fujii, S., and R. Kitamura. 2003. “What Does a One-month Free Bus Ticket Do
to Habitual Drivers? an Experimental Analysis of Habit and Attitude
Change.” Transportation 30 (1): 81–95. doi:10.1023/A:1021234607980.
Giuliano, G. 2003. “Travel, Location and race/ethnicity.” Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 37 (4): 351–372.
TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 11
Hausman, J., and D. Mcfadden. 1984. “Specification Tests for the Multinomial
Logit Model.” Econometrica 52 (5): 1219–1240. doi:10.2307/1910997.
Hensher, D. A., and J. M. Rose. 2007. “Development of Commuter and
Non-commuter Mode Choice Models for the Assessment of New Public
Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Case Study.” Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice 41 (5): 428–443.
Hess, D. B. 2001. “Effect of Free Parking on Commuter Mode Choice: Evidence
from Travel Diary Data.” Transportation Research Record 1753 (1): 35–42.
doi:10.3141/1753-05.
Kamargianni, M., S. Dubey, A. Polydoropoulou, and C. Bhat. 2015.
“Investigating the Subjective and Objective Factors Influencing
Teenagers’ School Travel Mode Choice–An Integrated Choice and
Latent Variable Model.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 78: 473–488.
Klöckner, C. A., and T. Friedrichsmeier. 2011. “A Multi-level Approach to
Travel Mode choice–How Person Characteristics and Situation Specific
Aspects Determine Car Use in A Student Sample.” Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 14 (4): 261–277. doi:10.1016/j.
trf.2011.01.006.
Kroesen, M., and S. Handy. 2014. “The Relation between Bicycle Commuting
and Non-work Cycling: Results from a Mobility Panel.” Transportation 41
(3): 507–527. doi:10.1007/s11116-013-9491-4.
LaMondia, J., and C. Bhat. 2011. “A Study of Visitors’ Leisure Travel Behavior in
the Northwest Territories of Canada.” Transportation Letters 3 (1): 1–19.
doi:10.3328/TL.2011.03.01.1-19.
Li, J., P. Embry, S. P. Mattingly, K. F. Sadabadi, I. Rasmidatta, and M. W. Burris.
2007. “Who Chooses to Carpool and Why? Examination of Texas
Carpoolers.” Transportation Research Record 2021 (1): 110–117.
doi:10.3141/2021-13.
Liu, C. Y., and G. Painter. 2012. “Travel Behavior among Latino Immigrants:
The Role of Ethnic Concentration and Ethnic Employment.” Journal of
Planning Education and Research 32 (1): 62–80. doi:10.1177/
0739456X11422070.
McFadden, D. 1978. “Modeling the Choice of Residential Location.”
Transportation Research Record (673): 72–77.
Mosa, A. I., and M. E. Esawey. 2013. “Modeling Individuals’ Attitudes toward
Joint Out-of-home Activity Participation with Household Members.”
Transportation Letters 5 (4): 213–228. doi:10.1179/
1942787513Y.0000000005.
Neoh, J. G., M. Chipulu, and A. Marshall. 2017. “What Encourages People to
Carpool? an Evaluation of Factors with Meta-analysis.” Transportation 44
(2): 423–447. doi:10.1007/s11116-015-9661-7.
NYMTC and NJTPA. 2013. “2010–2011 Regional Household Travel Survey.”
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and the North Jersey
Transportation Planning Authority.
Pinjari, A. R., R. M. Pendyala, C. R. Bhat, and P. A. Waddell. 2007. “Modeling
Residential Sorting Effects to Understand the Impact of the Built
Environment on Commute Mode Choice.” Transportation 34 (5): 557–573.
doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9127-7.
Polzin, S. E., X. Chu, and J. R. Rey. 1999. Mobility and Mode Choice of People of
Color for Non-work Travel. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Tampa, Florida.
Ross, R. B. 1975. “Measuring the Influence of Soft Variables on Travel Behavior.”
Traffic Quarterly 29 (3): 333–346.
Scheepers, E., W. Wendel-Vos, E. van Kempen, L. I. Panis, J. Maas,
H. Stipdonk, . . . J. Schuit. 2013. “Personal and Environmental
Characteristics Associated with Choice of Active Transport Modes
versus Car Use for Different Trip Purposes of Trips up to 7.5
Kilometers in the Netherlands.” PloS One 8 (9): e73105. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0073105.
Schlossberg, M., J. Greene, P. P. Phillips, B. Johnson, and B. Parker. 2006.
“School Trips: Effects of Urban Form and Distance on Travel Mode.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (3): 337–346. doi:10.1080/
01944360608976755.
Schwanen, T., M. Dijst, and F. M. Dieleman. 2001. “Leisure Trips of Senior
Citizens: Determinants of Modal Choice.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische En
Sociale Geografie 92 (3): 347–360. doi:10.1111/tesg.2001.92.issue-3.
Smart, M. J. 2015. “A Nationwide Look at the Immigrant Neighborhood Effect
on Travel Mode Choice.” Transportation 42 (1): 189–209. doi:10.1007/
s11116-014-9543-4.
Smart, M. J., and N. J. Klein. 2013. “Neighborhoods of Affinity: Social
Forces and Travel in Gay and Lesbian Neighborhoods.” Journal of the
American Planning Association 79 (2): 110–124. doi:10.1080/
01944363.2013.883227.
Spears, S., D. Houston, and M. G. Boarnet. 2013. “Illuminating the Unseen in
Transit Use: A Framework for Examining the Effect of Attitudes and
Perceptions on Travel Behavior.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 58: 40–53.
12 S. YUM
Stern, E., and H. W. Richardson. 2005. “A New Research Agenda for Modelling
Travel Choice and Behaviour.” Social Dimensions of Sustainable Transport:
Transatlantic Perspectives 144–163.
Sztompka, P. 2000. “The Turn toward Soft Variables in Sociological Theory.”
Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–17.
Van Acker, V., and P. L Mokhtarian., & Witlox, F. 2010. Refining the lifestyle
concept in travel behaviour research. Spatial and social variations in travel
behaviour. Incorporating lifestyle and attitudes into travel behaviour-land
use interaction research. Zelzate: DCL Print & Sign. Leegstraat, Belgium
van der Waerden, P., A. Lem, and W. Schaefer. 2015. “Investigation of Factors
that Stimulate Car Drivers to Change from Car to Carpooling in City Center
Oriented Work Trips.” Transportation Research Procedia 10: 335–344.
doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.083.
Van Vugt, M., P. A. Van Lange, and R. M. Meertens. 1996. “Commuting by Car
or Public Transportation? A Social Dilemma Analysis of Travel Mode
Judgements.” European Journal of Social Psychology 26 (3): 373–395.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992.
Van Wee, B., H. Holwerda, and R. Van Baren. 2002. “Preferences for Modes,
Residential Location and Travel Behaviour.” European Journal of Transport
and Infrastructure Research 2 (4): 1–12.
Vredin Johansson, M., T. Heldt, and P. Johansson. 2005. “Latent Variables in
a Travel Mode Choice Model: Attitudinal and Behavioural Indicator
Variables.” Working Paper 2005 (5): 1–36.
Wang, T., and C. Chen. 2012. “Attitudes, Mode Switching Behavior, and the
Built Environment: A Longitudinal Study in the Puget Sound Region.”
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (10): 1594–1607.
Washbrook, K., W. Haider, and M. Jaccard. 2006. “Estimating Commuter Mode
Choice: A Discrete Choice Analysis of the Impact of Road Pricing and
Parking Charges.” Transportation 33 (6): 621–639. doi:10.1007/s11116-005-
5711-x.
Yaylali, M., A. K. Çelik, and Ö. Dilek. 2016. “Analyzing Key Socio-economic and
Socio-demographic Drivers of Domestic Passengers’ Airline Choice Behavior
in Turkey Using Multinomial and Mixed Logit Models.” Transportation
Letters 8 (3): 121–130.