The aim of this study was to estimate the benefits that people could achieve by trading their car for a nonmotorized mode of travel, such as walking, to make their short daily trips. For this purpose, detailed information on travel behavior gathered through large-scale travel surveys conducted in the greater Montreal, Quebec, Canada, area was used. The travel behavior observed in recent travel surveys was analyzed to estimate the number of short trips for various population segments. These surveys gathered travel and sociodemographic information for approximately 5% of the population. Data from the 2003 survey revealed that more than 7 million motorized trips were made during a typical weekday; 862,000 (11.7%) were shorter than 1.6 km (1 mi). With the appropriate speed and stride for each population segment, these motorized kilometers were converted into numbers of steps to appraise the potential physical activity benefits of making these short trips by foot instead of by a motorized mode. The results show that about 837,000 motorized kilometers could be converted into almost 1,156 million steps every day. Overall, 12.5% of the population had steps in reserve, an average of 2,660 steps per person. Such a shift in mode choice could help some people meet their required physical activity volumes through their daily travel patterns while helping to save energy, reduce pollution, and mitigate traffic congestion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LitmanT.Integrating Public Health Objectives in Transportation Decision-Making. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2003, pp. 103–108.
2.
LoukopoulosP., and GärlingT.Are Car Users Too Lazy to Walk? The Relationship of Distance Thresholds for Driving to the Perceived Effort of Walking. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 206–211.
3.
GärlingT., BoeO., and GolledgeR.Determinants of Distance Thresholds for Driving. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 68–72.
4.
SallisJ. F., FrankL. D., and SaelensB. E.Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research. Transportation Research, Part A, Policy and Practice, Vol. 38A, No. 4, 2004, pp. 249–268.
5.
Special Report 282: Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005.
6.
KillingsworthR. E., De NazelleA., and BellR. H.Building a New Paradigm: Improving Public Health Through Transportation. ITE Journal, Vol. 73, No. 6, 2003, p. 28.
7.
MokdadA. H., MarksJ. S., StroupD. F., and GerberdingJ. L.Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 291, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1238–1245.
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Prevalence of Physical Activity, Including Lifestyle Activities Among Adults—United States, 2000–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 32, 2003, pp. 764–769.
9.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Physical Activity Levels Among Children Aged 9–13 years—United States, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 33, 2003, pp. 785–788.
10.
WarburtonD. E. R., WhitneyN. C., and BredinS. S. D.Health Benefits of Physical Activity: The Evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 174, No. 6, 2006, pp. 801–809.
11.
PucherJ., and RenneJ. I.Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the NHTS. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2003, pp. 49–77.
EwingR., ForinashC. V., and SchroeerW.Neighborhood Schools and Sidewalk Connections: What Are the Impacts on Travel Mode Choice and Vehicle Emissions?TR News, No. 237, March–April 2005, pp. 4–10.
14.
National Bicycling and Walking Study Ten-Year Status Report.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.
15.
RaffertyA. P., McGeeH. B., PetersmarckK. A., and MillerC. E.Proportion of Trips Made by Walking: Estimating a State-Level Baseline for Healthy People 2010 Objective 22-14. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2004, pp. 387–391.
16.
CliftonK. J., and KrizekK. J.The Utility of the NHTS in Understanding Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Proc., National Household Travel Survey Conference: Understanding Our Nation's Travel, Washington, D.C., 2004.
FletcherA.Steps in a Mile. How Many Steps Are There in One Mile?University of Iowa's Student Health Service, Iowa City, 2005. http://www.uiowa.edu/∼shs/. Accessed July 6, 2006.
19.
JudgeJ. O., DavisR. B.III, and OunpuuS.Step Length Reductions in Advanced Age: The Role of Ankle and Hip Kinetics. Journal of Gerontology, Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, Vol. 51, No. 6, 1996, pp. M303-M312.
20.
WarburtonD. E. R., WhitneyN. C., and BredinS. S. D.Prescribing Exercise as Preventive Therapy. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 174, No. 7, 2006, pp. 961–974.
21.
AinsworthB. E.The Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide.Prevention Research Center, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 2002. www.prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2006.
22.
Tudor-LockeC., and BassettD. R.Jr.How Many Steps/Day Are Enough? Preliminary Pedometer Indices for Public Health. Sports Medicine, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1–8.
23.
Tudor-LockeC., PangraziR. P., CorbinC. B., RutherfordW. J., VincentS. D., RaustorpA., TomsonL. M., and CuddibyT. F.BMI-Referenced Standards for Recommended Pedometer-Determined Steps/Day in Children. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2004, pp. 857–864.
24.
StrongW. B., MalinaR. M., BlimkieC. J., DanielsS. R., DishmanR. K., GutinB., HergenroederA. C., MustA., NixonP. A., PivarnikJ. M., RowlandT., TrostS., and TrudeauF.Evidence Based Physical Activity for School-Age Youth. Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 146, No. 6, 2005, pp. 732–737.
25.
ChanC. B., SpanglerE., ValcourJ., and Tudor-LockeC.Cross-Sectional Relationship of Pedometer-Determined Ambulatory Activity to Indicators of Health. Obesity Research, Vol. 11, No. 12, 2003, pp. 1563–1570.
26.
RodriguezD. A., and JooJ.The Relationship Between Non-Motorized Mode Choice and the Local Physical Environment. Transportation Research, Part D, Transport and Environment, Vol. 9D, No. 2, 2004, p. 151–173.
27.
ShriverK.Influence of Environmental Design on Pedestrian Travel Behavior in Four Austin Neighborhoods. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 64–75.
28.
HandyS. L.Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 135–144.
29.
GreenwaldM. J., and BoarnetM. G.Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior. Analyzing Nonwork Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 33–42.
30.
MoudonA. V., HessP. M., MatlickJ. M., and PergakesN.Pedestrian Location Identification Tools Identifying Suburban Areas with Potentially High Latent Demand for Pedestrian Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1818, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 94–101.
