List of Tables
4.5 Exploratory analysis of the sample data
4.5.2 Exploratory analysis of the travel related data .1 Purpose of the Trips
4.5.2 Exploratory analysis of the travel related data
From Figure 4.16 (a), it can be seen that MThW (29%) and MTW (26%) are the predominant modes used for making the work trips. Bus (4%) and Jeep/van (1%) are less frequently used as the commute modes. Car, bicycle, cycle rickshaw and walk modes have got equal share in the work related trips. In case of the shopping trips (Figure 4.17(a)), walk (36%) is the mostly chosen mode. MThW, MTW and cycle rickshaw were also commonly used for making the shopping trips.
From Figure 4.16 (b), it can be seen that a significant portion of education trips were made using NMT and transit (NMT 33% and transit 27%). Share of the transit mode (Bus) was less in trip purposes like work trips, shopping trip and other trips. In case of shopping trips, NMT mode was preferred (about 65%) compared to the 30% of work trips, 29% of social and other trips, and 33% of educational trips. This may be inferred shopping trips are shorter and involved with not much luggage. This may be due to the availability of the shops (of different nature) within the vicinity of the households.
4.5.2.2 Mode choice with respect to socioeconomic characteristics
Analysis of the effect of the socioeconomic characteristics on mode choice of the sampled individuals is analyzed in this section. This analysis has been carried out as it would be useful in finalizing the socioeconomic characteristics that would be useful for choice modeling. This analysis has been carried out for work and shopping trips only. Analysis of the effect of socioeconomic characteristics on work related mode choice is presented in the following sub-section. Similar analysis for shopping related trips is presented in the ensuing sub-section.
4.5.2.3 Mode choice for work trips
Data presented in Figure 4.18 and Table 4.11 clearly shows that higher income people mostly own a car. Low income people generally own/use bicycle and walking modes. In case of the work trips, share of MTW (25%) and MThW (33%) is high for households with income less than Rs 40000.00 per month. With increasing income, the patronage for car is found to be increasing. Among the households with more than Rs 50000.00 monthly income, 38% of the trip makers use car and its share is highest compared to the other modes.
Figure 4.18: Distribution of work trips based on income
Table 4.11: Descriptive statistics of the income of the individuals using various modes for work trips
Modes Mean Median Mode
Standard Deviation Car 71515.15 70000.00 50000.00 39922.71 Bus 35370.37 20000.00 15000.00 39877.84 MThW 22945.54 15000.00 10000.00 20669.44
MTW 33618.78 30000.00 10000.00 25402.83 Bicycle 16052.63 10000.00 10000.00 16438.08 Cycle rickshaw 30785.71 30000.00 30000.00 25575.06 Walking 19137.93 12500.00 10000.00 16520.53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Nos of work trip
Monthly household income ( Ruppes) Car
Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.19: Distribution of work trips based on age
Table 4.12: Descriptive statistics of the age of the individuals using different modes, for work trips
Modes Mean Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 48.73 51.00 51.00 8.15
Bus 38.93 37.00 32.00 12.65
MThW 43.50 45.00 50.00 11.78
MTW 43.86 45.00 52.00 10.66
Bicycle 42.09 42.00 42.00 11.69
Cycle rickshaw 45.79 46.00 62.00 13.62
Walking 47.29 47.00 52.00 11.61
From Figure 4.19, it can be inferred that MTW and MThW are the preferred modes for making work related trips irrespective of the age of the sampled individuals. From the sample, it has been observed that significant number of individuals aged between 50 to 60 years have made work trips using car.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No. of work trip
Age of individual (Years)
Car Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.20: Distribution of work trips based on years of education
Table 4.13 Descriptive statistics of years of education of the individuals using different modes for work trips
Modes
Average years of
education Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 15.71 16.00 16.00 2.02
Bus 13.63 15.00 15.00 4.35
MThW 12.24 12.00 15.00 3.61
MTW 14.06 15.00 15.00 2.58
Bicycle 10.36 10.00 10.00 2.85
Cycle rickshaw 13.63 15.00 15.00 2.85
Walking 11.07 12.00 15.00 3.49
From Figure 4.20, it can be seen that usage of car is increasing for making the work trips with increasing years of education. From Table 4.13, it can be seen that people using walk and bicycle as travel modes are less educated than the people choosing the other modes.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 5 8 10 12 15 18 21 >21
No. of work trips
Years of Education Car
Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.21: Distribution of work trips based on vehicle ownership (MTW + Car) Table 4.14: Descriptive statistics of vehicle ownership in case of work trips
Modes
Average private
ownership Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 1.21 1.00 1.00 0.73
Bus 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.77
MThW 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.65
MTW 1.35 1.00 1.00 0.58
Bicycle 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.54
Cycle rickshaw 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.76
Walking 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.66
From Figure 4.21, it can be seen that people without any private vehicle ownership prefer MThW rather than the other modes of transport. This may be due to the fact that people are not having reliable public transportation mode and people without private vehicle becoming virtually captive to MThW.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Car Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle
rickshaw
Walking
Trips
Private vehicle ownership with chosen mode
0 vehicle 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles
Figure 4.22: Distribution of work trips based on the family size Table 4.15: Statistics of sampled household size for various chosen modes
Modes
Average family
size Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 3.98 4.00 4.00 1.44
Bus 4.70 4.00 3.00 2.88
MThW 4.19 4.00 4.00 1.92
MTW 4.53 4.00 4.00 2.12
Bicycle 3.83 4.00 4.00 1.01
Cycle rickshaw 3.97 4.00 3.00 1.96
Walking 4.55 4.00 4.00 2.28
Figure 4.22 shows the mode wise frequency of trips with family size. The mean size of the family is around 4 people. From Table 4.15, it can be seen that the individuals from the smaller families are choosing bicycle as travel mode for work trips.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 More
Nos of work trip
Family Size
Car Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.23: Distribution of work trips based on the trip length
Table 4.16: Statistics of the sampled individuals’ trip length for various chosen modes
Modes Mean Median Mode Standard
Deviation
Car 4.46 3.40 12.00 3.73
MThW 4.29 3.81 5.02 3.11
MTW 3.54 2.89 1.00 3.21
Bicycle 2.89 2.05 5.00 2.21
Cycle Rickshaw 1.56 1.41 0.51 0.92
Walking 0.90 0.55 0.19 1.12
As shown in Figure 4.23, individuals prefer bus as travel mode when trip length is more.
The mean trip length for walk trips is 0.9 km and for cycle rickshaw and bicycle it is 1.56km and 2.89km, respectively. This implies that there is considerable number of workplaces near the residential locations within 1km buffer radius, which induces 9% of walk trips with mean distance of 0.9 km. People are using motorized modes when the mean trip lengths are around 3.5km. With respect to gender, it can be seen from the Figure 4.24 that female trip makers prefer cycle rickshaw and MThW as the modes of travel for work trips. MTW and bicycle are preferred modes for male trip makers.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 More
Nos of work trip
Trip length (Km)
Car Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.24: Distribution of work trips based on gender
4.5.2.4 Exploratory analysis of mode choice with respect to socioeconomic data for shopping trips
Figure 4.25 shows the frequency of trips versus income. People with income less than Rs40000.00 prefer walk mode compared to the other available modes. As per the data shown in Table 4.17, people using bicycle and MThW are having less monthly income.
People above 50 years of age have predominant share of walk mode. Share of MTW is high when the age of the trip maker is less than 40 years (Figure 4.26).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Car Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw
Walk
% of work trip
Gender
Male Female
Figure 4.25: Distribution of shopping trips based on household income Table 4.17: Statistics of the sampled individuals’ income for various chosen mode
Modes
Average
Income(Rs) Median(Rs) Mode(Rs)
Standard Deviation
Car 72500.00 70000.00 30000.00 46343.58
Auto-
Rickshaw 19339.62 15000.00 10000.00 17098.07
MTW 36562.50 30000.00 50000.00 32755.41
Bicycle 18913.04 10000.00 10000.00 29076.78 Cycle
Rickshaw 30666.67 20000.00 15000.00 29349.83 Walking 25763.36 20000.00 15000.00 424028185.55 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Nos of shopping trip
Monthly household income (Rs)
Car MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.26: Distribution of shopping trips based on the age of the sampled individuals Table 4.18: Statistics of the sampled individuals’ age for various chosen modes
Modes
Average
Age Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 50.08 52.00 52.00 5.09
Motorized
Rickshaw 43.15 45.00 60.00 16.77
MTW 42.59 45.50 39.00 11.25
Bicycle 47.07 48.00 48.00 12.41
Cycle Rickshaw 49.50 52.00 62.00 17.53
Walking 51.34 53.00 55.00 13.16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
No of shopping trips
Age ( years) Car
MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.27: Distribution of shopping trips based on years of education Table 4.19 Statistics of the sampled individuals’ educational level for various chosen mode
Modes
Average year of
education Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 15.75 15.50 15.00 0.97
MThW 11.30 12.00 15.00 3.46
MTW 13.83 15.00 15.00 2.43
Bicycle 10.61 10.00 15.00 3.56
Cycle Rickshaw 14.15 15.00 15.00 2.28
Walking 12.73 13.00 15.00 3.26
As opposed to the case of work trips, for shopping, the trip makers with 15 years of education prefer walk and cycle rickshaw (Figure 4.27). People with less years of education are choosing cycle and MThW for making the shopping trips. As can be seen from Figure 4.28, irrespective of the family size the share of the walking trips is high compared to the other modes.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 8 10 12 15 18 21
No of shopping trips
Years of Education Car
MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Figure 4.28: Distribution of shopping trips based on family size
Table 4.20: Statistics of the sampled individual’s family size for various chosen mode Modes
Average
family size Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 4.75 4.00 4.00 2.60
MThW 4.11 4.00 4.00 2.70
MTW 4.34 4.00 4.00 1.91
Bicycle 4.04 4.00 4.00 1.13
Cycle rickshaw 4.07 4.00 4.00 2.15
Walking 4.08 4.00 3.00 2.09
Figure 4.29: Distribution of shopping trips based on trip length
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
No. of shopping trips
Family size Car MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No of shopping trips
Trip length (km) Car MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle rickshaw Walking
Table 4.21: Statistics of the sampled individual’s trip length for various chosen modes
Modes
Average trip
length(km) Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 1.57 1.55 -- 1.22
MThW 2.52 1.99 0.92 1.89
MTW 1.75 1.14 0.76 1.39
Bicycle 1.12 1.04 1.15 0.76
Cycle Rickshaw 1.08 0.90 1.69 0.62
Walking 0.69 0.51 0.51 0.56
From Figure 4.29 it can be seen that most of the trips undertaken by walk mode, trip distance varies from 0-2 km. So it is clearly evident that people prefer walking while making the shopping trips when the trip distance is small. This also indicates that the presence of mixed land use reduces the average trip length.
Figure 4.30: Distribution of shopping trips based on vehicle ownership (MTW + Car) Table 4.22: Statistics of the sampled individuals’ vehicle ownership for various chosen
mode
Modes
Average private
vehicle ownership Median Mode
Standard Deviation
Car 1.17 1.00 1.00 0.94
MThW 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.59
MTW 1.34 1.00 1.00 0.60
Bicycle 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.49
Cycle Rickshaw 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.66
Walking 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.81
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Car Bus MThW MTW Bicycle Cycle
rickshaw Walking
Number of shopping trips
Vehicle ownership 0
1 2 3 4
> 4
From Figure 4.30 it can be said that those who do not own private motorized vehicles tend to use walk, cycle-rickshaw, MThW, and cycle as the modes of travel when making the shopping trips.
Figure 4.31: Distribution of shopping trips based on gender
Similar to work trips, female trip makers prefer MThW and cycle rickshaw in case of shopping trips (Figure 4.31).