How Travel Purpose Interacts with Predictors of Individual Driving Behavior in Greater Montreal

Abstract

Rising transport emissions represent a significant challenge for policy makers. Two principal options exist to reduce emissions: make driving less polluting or reduce driving overall. Though cities have a role to play in both approaches, the levers that may influence the latter more squarely align with municipal competences concerning the urban form. This paper aims to refine our understanding of the relationship between urban form, public transport systems, and driving behavior by exploring whether accessibility—the ease of reaching desired destinations—exerts a different influence on people’s decision to drive on weekdays and total distance driven depending on travel purpose. We relied on disaggregate data from the 2013 Montreal Origin–Destination Survey and employed a two-step “hurdle” approach with multilevel logistic and linear models. We found both local and regional accessibility displayed statistically significant negative correlations with driving mode choice and vehicle distance driven by drivers. Concerning the decision to drive, regional accessibility, defined by transit-accessible jobs, appeared to possess a stronger relationship than local, as measured by Walk Score across all purposes. When considering total kilometers driven, however, the relative impact of both types of accessibility varied. Overall, and for work and school driving, regional accessibility correlated with the greatest declines in distance driven. For healthcare and discretionary travel, local accessibility correlated with a larger decline in total driving distance. Our findings also highlight the potentially profound impact of other explanatory factors, particularly car ownership, suggesting additional policy approaches for municipal decision makers to reduce vehicle kilometers traveled.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.