Intermodal Non-Motorized Transportation Mode Choice; Case Study: Qazvin City

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Islamic Azad University, Iran.

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.


Achieving the sustainable development of the urban transport network requires systematic and efficient planning, and precise implementation. In this regard, consideration of non-motorized transport (walking and cycling) as a successful way to reduce the economic and environmental costs of urban transportation is debatable. For this reason, the present study studies the characteristics and factors affecting riding, pedestrians and bicycles. Case study of this study is data derived from a sample origin-destination questionnaire from residents of Qazvin, including personal and family characteristics, socio-economic characteristics, environmental characteristics and transport network characteristics. Therefore, in order to investigate the behavior of individuals in choosing the mode of travel, the modeling was carried out in three modes, namely: motor and non-motor transport (32053 views), second mode: walking and cycling (8203 views) and third mode: motor transport, walking and cycling (32053 views) is presented using discrete selection models. Depending on the models, it is observed. The results of the review of the choice of motorist non-motorized travel method, the same final model resulting from considering different modes of non-motorized transport (pedestrians and bicycles) as an option. If the intermediate model (selection mode between walking and biking) replaces the option to choose a motor transport option. The results also show that individual variables (age, gender, education, certification, and occupational status), socioeconomic (motor and non-motorized ownership and household size) as well as variables related to network and travel (destination, destination distance, travel distance , Travel purpose, time-out-day of travel and the number of trips in the travel chain) affect people's choices in choosing traveling manner.


  1. Banister, D., & Button, K. (Eds.). (2015). Transport, the environment and sustainable development. Routledge.
  2. Schiller, P. L., & Kenworthy, J. R. (2017). An introduction to sustainable transportation: Policy, planning and implementation. Routledge.
  3. Gudmundsson, H., Marsden, G., & Josias, Z. (2016). Sustainable transportation: Indicators, frameworks, and performance management.
  4. Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2017). Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future.
  5. Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Duan, Z. Y., & Bryde, D. (2015). Sustainable bike-sharing systems: characteristics and commonalities across cases in urban China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 124-133.
  6. Ortuzar, J. D., Iacobelli, A. and Valeze, C. (2000). Estimating demand for a cycle-way network. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 34, pp. 353-373.
  7. Parkin, R. (2008). Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. From the Selected Worksm of John Parkin, University of Bolton.
  8. Wardman, M., Tight, M. and Page, M. (2007). Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Transportation Research Part A, Vol.  41, pp. 339-350.
  9. Plaut, P. O. (2005). Non-motorized commuting in the US. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 10, pp. 347-356.
  10. Noland, R. B. and Kunreuther, H. (1995). Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips. Transport Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 67-79.
  11. Agrawal, A. W. and Schimek, P. (2007). Extent and correlates of walking in the USA. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 12, pp. 548 563.
  12. Wardman, M., Hatfield, R. and Page, M. (1997). The UK national cycling strategy: can improved facilities meet the targets. Transport Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 123-133.
  13. Buys, L., and Miller, E. (2011). Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, pp. 289-297.
  14. Habibian, M. And kermanshah, m. (2012). Investigating the contribution of transport management policies to the choice of alternative routes for personal holidays in daily business trips, transport engineering, third year, third issue, in Persian.
  15. Bigdeli Rad, H., & Bigdeli Rad, V. (2018). A Survey on the Rate of Public Satisfaction about Subway Facilities in the City of Tehran Using Servqual Model. Space Ontology International Journal7(1), 9-15.
  16. Manaugh, K. and El-Geneidy, A. M. (2013). Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol 50, 198–208.
  17. Rahula, T. M. and Vermab, A. (2013). Study of Impact of Various Influencing Factors on NMT ModeChoice. Social and Behavioral Sciences,Vol. 104, pp. 1112 – 1119.
  18. Juremalani, J., & Chauhan, K. A. (2018). Evaluation of Use of Non-Motorized Vehicles for Shopping Trips under Mix Traffic Conditions. In Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies: Energy and Water Infrastructure; Transportation Infrastructure; and Planning and Financing (pp. 688-696). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
  19. Hatamzadeh, J., Habibian, M. And god, as. (2014). Factors influencing the choice of walking method in students' educational trips by grade. Fourteenth International Conference on Transport and Traffic Engineering. Tehran, in Persian.
  20. Qorbani And Asadi, u. (2014). Investigating Factors Affecting Reducing Bicycle Use in Urban Travel, A Case Study of Zanjan City. Journal of Geography and Planning, Vol. 19, No. 51, p. 267 to 288, in persian.
  21. Scheiner, J., Huber, O., & Lohmüller, S. (2019). Children's mode choice for trips to primary school: a case study in German suburbia. Travel behaviour and society, 15, 15-27.
  22. Pike, S., & Lubell, M. (2018). The conditional effects of social influence in transportation mode choice. Research in transportation economics, 68, 2-10.
  23. Rad, V. B., Najafpour, H., Ngah, I., Shieh, E., Rashvand, P., & Rad, H. B. (2015). What Are The Safety Factors Associating with Physical Activity in Urban Neighborhoods?(A Systematic Review). J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci5(3), 259-266.
  24. Ahmadi, M. And Habib, F (2009). Sustainable urban development with emphasis on pedestrianism in Asia. Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 10, Number 3, in Persian.
  25. Hataminzhad, h. And Ashrafi, y. (2009). Bicycle and Its Role in Sustainable Urban Transport, Case Study: Bonab City. Human Geography Research, No. 70, p. 45 to 63, in Persian.
  26. Habibian, M., Dibaj, S. And Rahmati, y. (2012). Investigating Transportation Demand Management Policy in Short Trips to the Central District of Tehran, 12th International Conference on Transport and Traffic Engineering, Tehran, Iran, in Persian.
  27. Panter, J., Desousa, C. and Ogilvie, D. (2013). Incorporating walking or cycling into car journeys to and from work: The role of individual, workplace and environmental characteristics, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 56, pp. 211–217.
  28. Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q., Amoh-Gyimah, R., Tran, A. T. P., & Phan, C. T. (2018). Mode choice among university students to school in Danang, Vietnam. Travel behaviour and society13, 1-10.
  29. Atiehasaz Engineering Company and Armand Taradod Pars Engineering Co. (2010). Area Studies Comprehensive Transportation and Traffic. Report of comprehensive traffic and traffic plans of Qazvin city, Qazvin municipality, in Persian.
  30. V.B. Rad, H. Najafpour, E. Shieh, H.B. Rad, Questionnaire design: relation of physical activity and safety, Int. J. Architect. Eng. Urban Plan 29 (1) (2019) 113–123.
  31. Greene, W. H. (2007). NLOGIT Version 4.0 Reference Guide, New York: Econometric Software Inc.
  32. Yazid, M. M., Ismail, R., & Atiq, R. (2011). The use of non-motorized for sustainable transportation in Malaysia. Procedia Engineering, 20, 125-134.