4.6 Article

Does a high level of multimodality mean less car use? An exploration of multimodality trends in England

期刊

TRANSPORTATION
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 1093-1126

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-017-9810-2

关键词

Trends; Multimodality; Car use; Social inequality; Travel behaviour

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, VENI-Grant [016.145.073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some existing studies have suggested that a higher level of multimodality-the use of more than one transport mode within a given period of time-may be desirable to achieve societies less dependent on cars. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends in individual multimodality in England. In addition, we explored whether these trends were homogenous, i.e. similar between socio-economic characteristics, and whether changes in multimodality corresponded with changes in car use and the use of other transport modes. Our analyses showed that in contrast to reported trends in existing research, the level of multimodality in England decreased between 1995 and 2015. These trends stratified by income were diverging, which may imply that inequality in transport opportunities may be increasing. In contrast, the trends for age and gender were converging. In addition, we found that the car mode share remained fairly stable and absolute car use decreased since 2004, whilst multimodality decreased. This suggests that there is no necessary relationship between aggregate levels of car use and the average individual level of multimodality. Moreover, our analyses showed that these trends were very similarly independent of which indicator was applied. This indicates that for analysing trends in multimodality, the choice of indicator may not be that important, and indicators that are elementary to calculate and easy to interpret, e.g. number of modes used, highlight trends that are highly consistent with more sophisticated metrics. This paper finishes with a discussion of the implications of these findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据