Changes in transport user’s motivations for modal choice : passenger transport : report of the sixty-eight Round Table on Transport Economics, held in Paris on 8th and 9th November 1984.

106 Pages·1985·3.667 MB·English

by  OECD

ECONOMICRESEARCHCENTRE
CHANGES IN TRANSPORT
USERS' MOTIVATIONS FOR
MODAL CHOICE :
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
EUROPEANCONFERENCEOFMINISTERSOFTRANSPORT
PARIS1985
ECONOMICRESEARCHCENTRE
REPORTOFTHE
SIXTY-EIGHT ROUNDTABLE
ONTRANSPORTECONOMICS
Held in Paris on 8th and 9th November1984
on the following topic :
CHANGES IN TRANSPORT
USERS' MOTIVATIONS FOR
MODAL CHOICE:
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
EUROPEANCONFERENCEOFMINISTERSOFTRANSPORT
THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE
OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT (ECMT]
The European Conference of Ministers ofTransport (ECMT),an inter-governmental organisation,
establishedbya Protocolsignedin Brusselson 17thOctober 1953,constitutesaforumfortheMinistersof
Transportof 19Europeancountries1.TheworkoftheCouncilofMinistersispreparedbyaCommitteeof
Deputies.
ThepurposesoftheConference are:
a) to take whatever measures may be necessary to achieve, at general or regional level, the most
efficient use and rational development of European inland transport of international impor¬
tance;
b) toco-ordinateandpromotetheactivitiesofinternationalorganisationsconcernedwithEuropean
inland transport, taking intoaccount theworkofsupranationalauthorities inthisfield.
MajorproblemswhicharebeingstudiedbytheECMTinclude:transportpolicy;thefinancialsituation
and organisation of railways and road transport; problems concerning inland waterway transport and
combined transport; development ofEuropean trunklines ofcommunication;problems concerning urban
transport;thepreventionofroadaccidentsandco-ordination,atEuropeanlevel,ofroadtrafficrulesandroad
signsandsignals; traffictrendsandlong-term traffic forecasts.
Moreover,theECMTorganisesRoundTablesandSymposia.Theirconclusionsareconsideredbythe
competentorgansoftheConference,undertheauthorityoftheCommitteeofDeputies,sothatthelattermay
formulateproposals forpolicydecisions tobesubmitted tothe Ministers.
The ECMTisequippedwith acomputerised Documentation Centre.
TheSecretariatisattachedfromanadministrativepointofviewtotheSecretariatoftheOrganisationfor
EconomicCo-operationand Development (OECD) whichdistributes itspublications.
1. Austria.Belgium,Denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Ireland,Italy,Luxembourg,theNetherlands,Norway,Portugal,
Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Turkey,theUnitedKingdomandYugoslavia(associatedcountries:Australia,Canada,Japan,UnitedStates).
Publicenfrancaissouslelitre:
Evolutiondelamotivation
desusagersen mat1eredechoixmodal:
transportdepersonnes
© ECMT, 1985
ECMTpublicationsare distributed by theOECD PublicationsOffice,
2, rue Andre-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHANGES IN TRANSPORT USERS' MOTIVATIONS FOR MODAL CHOICE:
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
GERMANY
W. Brog (cid:9) 5
UNITED KINGDOM
P. Goodwin (cid:9) 61
SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION
(Round Table debate on the reports) (cid:9) 91
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (cid:9) 98
ECMT. ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
Forthcoming publications (cid:9) 102

W. BRdG
Socialdata, Munich
Germany
SUMMARY
1. OUTLINE OF THE PROBLEM (cid:9) 7
2. NEED FOR INFORMATION (cid:9) 7
2.1. Indicators of out-of-home activity patterns (cid:9) 8
2.2. Sample surveys of transport behaviour using the
"KONTIV-DESIGN" (cid:9) 9
2.3. Data validation (cid:9) _.. (cid:9) 12
3. BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES BETWEEN 1976 AND 1982 (cid:9) 14
3.1. General framework (cid:9) 15
3.2. Out-of-home activity patterns (cid:9) 15
3.3. Modal split (cid:9) 17
4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (cid:9) 19
4.1. Changes in transport behaviour between 1976 and 1982 (cid:9) 20
4.2. Regional differences in changes in transport behaviour (cid:9) 20
4.3. Planning schemes to improve urban structures (cid:9) 21
4.4. Impact of measures in the public transport field (cid:9) 21
4.5. Effects of measures to encourage non-motorised traffic (cid:9) 24
4.6. Subjective evaluations of transport infrastructures (cid:9) 25
5. DISCUSSION (cid:9) 26
Tables (cid:9) 29
1. OUTLINE OF THE PROBLEM
The pattern of mobility outside the home and the associated use of the
transport infrastructure and vehicles has changed in Germany since the
mid-seventies in a way that had not been expected. For future transport
planning -- and possible adjustment thereof -- it is of great importance to be
able to recognise and understand these changes and obtain pointers to possible
further developments. To do this a distinction needs to be made between
different types of change, according to the underlying cause:
a) Changes due to changes in population patterns;
b) Changes due to alterations in the external conditions governing
mobility outside the home (general economic situation, land use,
transport supply, dominant ideas of society);
c) Changes due to changes in the motivation of transport users
themselves.
Because of the complexity of life in modern society, however, observed
changes in transport behaviour can seldom be traced back to just one of the
above-named influencing factors. If, for example, the factors under headings
a) and b) are broken down according to whether they have a restrictive effect,
whether they make existing behaviour patterns more difficult but not
impossible, or whether they create new options, then at least in the last two
cases, actual changes in behaviour are possible only if the individuals
concerned are subjectively willing to make them, i.e. if there is a
corresponding change in area c).
In this area (c) a distinction can be made between changes that have no
effect on transport use, those that increase or decrease the use of modes of
transport already used and those that lead to a modal change. In the last two
cases a distinction can be made between direct and indirect effects (where,
for example, a change in motivation causes a change in the pattern of
out-of-home activities and this results in a change in transport use).
In accordance with its mandate, this study concentrates on changes in
area c) (motivation), that lead to changes in transport use. So far as
possible both direct and indirect changes in behaviour caused by changes in
motivation are dealt with.
2. NEED FOR INFORMATION
Analyses of changed motivations for transport use requires both
information about the influencing factors discussed in Chapter 1 and also
-- and above all -- reliable data on actual changes in behaviour. If such
empirical data on behaviour are available, then it is possible to examine the
recorded change in behaviour in the light of relevant information on
influencing factors a) and b) (insofar as this is necessary and possible) and
finally estimate the effect of influencing factor c). This procedure is to be
given preference over the opposite approach (first measuring motivation and
then examining its possible effects on the corresponding behaviour) if only
because reliable empirical data on motivation are available only to a very
limited extent.
Such a methodology in any event makes demands on the empirical
behaviour data which in many cases can be met only partially, if at all.
2.1. Indicators of out-of-home activity patterns
The basic unit for virtually all data concerned with transport research
is the individual trip. It is generally described with respect to distance,
trip duration, mode used and trip purpose. A trip, however, is as a rule not
an end in itself, but leads to the exercise of some activity at the
destination. These out-of-home activities are the trigger for mobility as
understood in this study. They are the expression of the way in which
individuals and their households have organised their everyday life. If
mobility is understood in this way, it is necessary to know all the
out-of-home activities, if possible of all members of the household.
Restricting the concept of mobility to specific trips (e.g. motorised trips),
as is often done, is not good enough here. The exercise of out-of-home
activities is often built up into relatively complex activity patterns linking
a number of different destinations in a single sojouriT A complete chain of
trips and activities -- from leaving the home to returning -- will be called
outings. These outings have to be seen in the overall context of all the
activity patterns of a given day. Many people complete all their activities
in a single outing, many leave the home several times in the course of a day
and others not at all. The percentage of people who leave the home on a given
survey day (i.e. those who are mobile according to the definition used here),
is the share of mobiles. If average values per person are calculated for all
trips, the trips per person or trips per mobile, can be calculated, according
to the reference value chosen. In addition, for the mobiles an average value
of trips per outing can be calculated.
As already stated, out-of-home activities are the underlying reason for
these trips. The average number of activities must not be confused with the
number of destinations; however. Although the latter indicator is much more
usual in transport planning, it is not so well suited for the analyses of
out-of-home mobility, as the number of trips per activity varies greatly from
one activity to another.
By definition, out-of-home activities are carried out at a certain
distance from the place of residence. In line with what has been said above,
a distinction can be made between distance per trip, distance per outing and
the total distance covered per person per day. A similar distinction can be
made with respect to the corresponding periods of time involved, giving trip
duration, travel time per outing and travel time per day. The last figure is
the transport participation time and is calculated per person and/or per
mobile. Travel time is a component of the overall daily time budget. Other
important components of this time budget are duration per activity, total
out-of-home time and average time spent at home per day.
In the case of transport use, a distinction needs to be made between
the main mode used per trip and all modes used per trip. It is also useful to
know the percentage of people who use a given transport mode at least once a
day -- this is frequently known as the participation rate. Such participation
rates can also be calculated for private transport available in the household,
in particular its car(s). This shows what percentage of (private) cars are
actually used per day, how many trips per car are made, distance covered per
car per day and driving time per car per day. In addition, it is possible to
determine average~passengers per car and per trip, per kilometre or per hour,
and finally how many different drivers use the same car in a day.
The set of indicators outlined above is necessary in order to be able
to describe the conditions directly influencing the choice of transport mode
for out-of-home activity patterns fairly comprehensively in quantitative
terms. It nevertheless requires empirical surveys using appropriate
methodology. One such survey was developed in Germany in the early
seventies. It is known as the "KONTIV-Design" and is the basis for all the
empirical transport behaviour data presented in what follows.
2.2. Sample surveys of transport behaviour using the "KONTIV-Design"
In accordance with the state-of-the-art in current research, the
"KONTIV design" strictly adheres to the basic premise that the interviewee is
to be the focal point of all considerations dealing with survey design. Among
other things, this means that:
-- The entire survey design has to be made as attractive and appealing
as possible for the interviewee;
-- All of the instruments have to be so designed that they are
unproblematical and can be understood easily by all of the
respondents;
-- Questions have to be as easy as possible to answer; (checks must
repeatedly be made to make sure that this is the case).
In other words:
-- Although the survey is designed ]__ the scientist, it is designed for
the respondent. Thus, the interests of the researcher must be
subordinate to those of the respondents, and not vice versa.
The following elements are the basis of the most important principles
of the "KONTIV design" -- i.e. :
a) Trips are defined based on activity and not on travel mode.
Comprehensive tests have shown that defining trips based on
activities is simpler for the respondents, and it is also easier for
the respondents to answer questions when trips are thus defined.
(The fact that this interpretation of out-of-house activities has
also become of conceptual importance was not a major consideration
here.)