Multimodal trips, or trips that use more than one means of transportation, have historically been underrepresented in travel surveying efforts. This lack of consideration has implications for widely accepted statistics for nonmotorized travel behavior (walking, bicycling, etc.) and affects researchers and professionals in travel modeling, urban planning, public health, and urban design. However, interest in the “last mile” connections to transit, aggregate health impacts of short walking trips, and emphasis on local connectivity require more detailed information on these typically short but important stages of travel. This study reviews approaches to multimodal travel behavior in travel surveys, analyzes their implications, and makes recommendations to improve data collection for the purpose of improved representation of multimodal travel. Particular attention is given to transit access and egress trip segments, nonmotorized travel, use of technology in travel surveys, reporting data, and dissemination of the travel survey beyond the travel forecasting community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShaheenS., and RodierC.EasyConnect: Low-Speed Modes Linked to Transit Planning Project.California PATH Research Report. Partners for Advanced Travel and Highways University of California, Berkeley, 2008.
RichardsonA., AmptE., and MeyburgA.Survey Methods for Transport Planning.Eucalyptus Press, Oakland, Calif., 1995.
4.
StopherP., and JonesP.Transport Survey Quality and Innovation.Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom, 2003.
5.
StopherP., NCHRP Report 571: Standardized Procedures for Personal Travel Surveys.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
6.
BattyM.Agent-Based Pedestrian Modeling. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 28, 2001, p. 321.
7.
Hoogendoorn-LanserS., van NesR., HoogendoornS.P., and BovyH. L. P.Home–Activity Approach to Multimodal Travel Choice Modeling. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1985, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 180–187.
8.
ArentzeT.Multistate Supernetwork Approach to Modelling Multi-Activity, Multimodal Trip Chains. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 18, No. 7, 2004, p. 631.
9.
BhatC.R., and LawtonT. K.Passenger Travel Demand Forecasting. In Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions(CD-ROM). Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000.
10.
SchneiderR.J., ArnoldL.S., and RaglandD. R.Methodology for Counting Pedestrians at Intersections: Use of Automated Counters to Extrapolate Weekly Volumes from Short Manual Counts. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2140, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1–12.
Block-SchachterD.The Myth of the Single Mode Man: How the Mobility Pass Better Meets Actual Travel Demand.MS thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2009.
13.
NCHRP Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
14.
KuhnimhofT., BuehlerR., and DargayJ.A New Generation: Travel Trends Among Young Germans and Britons. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2230, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 58–67.
15.
NobisC.Multimodality: Facets and Causes of Sustainable Mobility Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2010, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 35–44.
16.
ParkS., and KangJ.Factors That Influence Walking and Biking to the Station: Modeling Commuter Rail Users' Access Mode Choice. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
17.
PanH., ShenQ., and XueS.Intermodal Transfer Between Bicycles and Rail Transit in Shanghai, China. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2144, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 181–188.
18.
ReitveldP.The Accessibility of Railway Stations: The Role of the Bicycle in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 5, 2000, pp. 71–75.
19.
BosI., Van der HeijdenR., MolinE., and TimmermansH.The Choice of Park and Ride Facilities: An Analysis Using a Context-Dependent Hierarchical Choice Experiment. Environment and Planning, Vol. 36, No. 9, 2004, pp. 1673–1686.
20.
LiZ.-C.LamW. H. K., WongS.C., ZhuD.-L., and HuangH.-J.Modeling Park-and-Ride Services in a Multimodal Transport Network with Elastic Demand. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1994, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 101–109.
21.
CerveroR.Alternative Approaches to Modeling the Travel-Demand Impacts of Smart Growth. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2006. p. 285.
22.
On-Line Travel Survey Manual. Travel Survey Methods Committee, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011. http://www.travelsurveymanual.org.
23.
Trip Generation Manual, 8th ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2008.
24.
SchneiderR.Comparison of Mode Share Measures: Quantifying Multimodal Travel of Bay Area Retail Pharmacy Customers.Working Paper. Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley, 2010.
25.
AnableJ., and GaterslebenB.All Work and No Play? The Role of Instrumental and Affective Factors in Work and Leisure Journeys by Different Travel Modes. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 39, 2005, pp. 165–181.
26.
MaderaJ.A., and SmithC.Surveys of Bicyclists and the General Population in Three Cities: Comparison of Methods and Results. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2009.
27.
SallisJ.F., FrankL.D., SaelensB.E., and KraftM. K.Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research. Transportation Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2004, p. 249.
28.
KillingsworthR.E., and SchmidT. L.Community Design and Transportation Policies: New Ways to Promote Physical Activity. Physician and Sportsmedicine, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2001.
Greater Triangle Travel Study (North Carolina): Household Travel Survey Final Report.NuStats, Austin, Tex., 2006.
41.
Ohio Statewide Household Travel Survey, 2001–2003. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, 2001.
42.
SchlossbergM., and BrownN.Comparing Transit-Oriented Development Sites by Walkability Indicators. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1887, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, p. 34–42.
43.
PucherJ., and BuehlerR.Integrating Bicycling and Public Transport in North America. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2009, pp. 79–104.
44.
CATS 1990 Household Travel Survey. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, Ill.1990.
45.
OKI Household Activity and Travel Survey. Ohio–Kentucky–Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1995.
46.
Sacramento Area Household Travel Survey. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento, Calif.2000.
47.
Cleveland Area Home Interview Travel Survey. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency and Policy Board, Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority, Cleveland, Ohio, 1994.
48.
Dallas-Fort Worth Household Travel Survey. North-Central Texas Council of Governments, Dallas–Fort Worth, 1996, 1998, 1999.
49.
AxhausenK. W.Observing the Rhythms of Daily Life: A Six-Week Travel Diary. Transportation, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2002, p. 95.
50.
BrickaS., and BhatC. R.Comparative Analysis of Global Positioning System-Based and Travel Survey-Based Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1972, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. pp. 9–20.
51.
ChiaoK.-A.ArgoteJ., ZmudJ., HilsenbeckK., ZmudM., and WolfJ.Continuous Improvement in Regional Household Travel Surveys: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Experience. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2246, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 74–82.
52.
Greater Cincinnati Household Travel Survey. Ohio–Kentucky–Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2008.
53.
MarchalP., MadreJ.-L, and YuanS.Postprocessing Procedures for Person-Based Global Positioning System Data Collected in the French National Travel Survey 2007–2008. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2246, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 47–54.
54.
OliveiraM. G. S., VovshaP., WolfJ., BirotkerY., GivonD., and PaascheJ.Global Positioning System-Assisted Prompted Recall Household Travel Survey to Support Development of Advanced Travel Model in Jerusalem, Israel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2246, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 16–23.
55.
NuStats. Chicago Regional Household Travel Inventory GPS Final Report.Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, Ill., 2008.
56.
BrickaS.Non-Response Challenges in GPS-based Surveys. Presented at 8th International Conference on Survey Methods in Transport, Annecy, France, 2008.
57.
HoodJ., SallE., and CharltonB.A GPS-based Bicycle Route Choice Model for San Francisco, California. Transportation Letters, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2011, p. 63.
58.
SeabornC., AttanucciJ., and WilsonN. H. M.Analyzing Multimodal Public Transport Journeys in London with Smart Card Fare Payment Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2121, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 55–62.
59.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; NuStats International. RT-HIS: Regional Travel—Household Interview Survey Final Report.New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, 2000.
60.
Lane Council of Governments—Oregon Household Activity Survey: Central Lane MPO Final Report. NuStats, Austin, Tex.2010.
