Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining the Railheading Travel Behaviour with Home Location, Park ‘N’ Ride Characteristics, and the Built Environment to Strengthen Multimodalism

  • Published:
Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban planning is transitioning away from the ‘Predict and Provide’ approach that accommodates automobility and towards the ‘Demand Management’ approach that prioritises alternatives that include active, shared, and public transport and restricts the convenience of automobility. While this transition could prove a sustainable solution for urban mobility, individuals already residing within auto-dependent settings may be unwilling or unable to relocate to high urban density where the alternatives are more viable. As such, restricting the automobility of these individuals potentially leaves them stranded throughout the urban form. The ‘Multimodalism’ approach is a pragmatic alternative that provides Park `n’ Rides, Kiss `n’ Rides, and feeder transit services that ensure everyone has access to rapid public transport yet the approach receives relatively little research attention. As such, researchers, policy makers, and planners are poorly equipped to influence intended multimodal travel behaviours or discourage the unintended such as ‘railheading’ towards more distantly located PnR. In this study, the transport planning and social psychology literature is examined to develop a conceptual model of travel behaviour, and for the first time, railheading behaviour is examined at the metropolitan-scale and explained using the conceptual model. The conceptual model and research findings strengthen the theoretical and empirical foundations for understanding travel behaviour, which in turn supports planning authorities and practitioners in promoting more sustainable transport behaviour, and in preparing for an urban future where Mobility-as-a-Service, ride-hailing, ride-sharing, eScooters, and autonomous vehicles become more integrated and commonplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. M., Kalra, N., Stanley, K. D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., & Oluwatola, O. A. (2016). Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR443-2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action.

  • Arnott, R., & Rowse, J. (1999). Modelling parking. Journal of Urban Economics, 45(1), 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Census of Population and Housing. (ABS, Ed.). Canberra: Author. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/datapacks

  • Axhausen, K.W., and Gärling, T. (1992) Activity-based approaches to travel analysis: conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems. Transport Reviews 12.4 (1992): 323–341.

  • Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport : City transport in the new century. Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003886.

  • Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75, 493–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. G. (2000). A game theory approach to measuring the performance reliability of transport networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 34(6), 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, I. D. M., Van der Heijden, R. E. C. M., Molin, E. J. E., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2004). The choice of park and ride facilities: An analysis using a context-dependent hierarchical choice experiment. Environment and Planning A., 36, 1673–1686. https://doi.org/10.1068/a36138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Roads. (1969). Report on Australia road systems - 1968, part 14. Canberra: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, P., Engebretsen, Ø., Fearnley, N., & Hanssen, J. U. (2017). Parking facilities and the built environment: Impacts on travel behaviour. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, 198–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Modelling the joint access mode and railway station choice. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2008.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, M., & Parkhurst, G. (2014). Understanding the mobility-transformative qualities of urban park and ride polices in the UK and the Netherlands. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 14(3/4), 246. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2014.065292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovey, K., Woodcock, I., & Pike, L. (2014). Intensifying Melbourne: Transit-oriented urban design for resilient urban futures. Planning News, 41(2), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, M., & Christensen, R. K. (2013). An analysis of park-and-ride provision at light rail stations across the US. Transport Policy, 25, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2012.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, M., & Cook, D. (2014). Is the provision of park-and-ride facilities at light rail stations an effective approach to reducing vehicle kilometers traveled in a US context? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 66, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2014.04.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, T. S. (1989). Who solved the secretary problem? Statistical Science, 4(3), 282–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, E. (1990). Transportation demand management planning, development, and implementation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(4), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369008975448.

  • Fisk, C. S. (1984). Game theory and transportation systems modelling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 18(4–5), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foote, P. J. (2000). Chicago transit authority weekday park-and-ride users: Choice market with ridership growth potential. Transportation Research Record., 1735, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.3141/1735-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, L. D., & Pivo, G. (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record.

  • Ginn, S. (2009). The application of the Park & Ride and TOD concepts to develop a new framework that can maximise public transport patronage. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, P. B. (1996). Empirical evidence on induced traffic: A review and synthesis. In Transportation 23.

  • Goodwin, P. B. (2012). Peak travel, Peak Car and the Future of Mobility.

  • Goulden, M., Ryley, T., & Dingwall, R. (2014). Beyond ‘predict and provide’: UK transport, the growth paradigm and climate change. Transport Policy, 32, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamer, P. (2010). Analysing the effectiveness of park and ride as a generator of public transport mode shift. Road & Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice, 19(1), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heggie, I. G., & Papoulias, D. B. (1976). Operational performance of park and ride: Objectives and achievements in Oxford. Transport Studies Unit.

  • Hendricks, S., & Outwater, M. (1998). Demand forecasting model for park-and-ride lots in King County, Washington. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1623(1), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.3141/1623-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, P.J. (1996). What is induced traffic? Transportation, 23, 5–16

  • Hounsell, N., Shrestha, B., & Piao, J. (2011). Enhancing Park and ride with access control: A case study of Southampton. Transport Policy, 18(1), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.002.

  • Huntley, P. (1993). Park and ride: Strategic modal shift or cheap overflow. Local Transport Today, 22(July), 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., & Whitehead, J. (2018). How to ride transport disruption –a sustainable framework for future urban mobility. Australian Planner, 54(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2018.1424002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimpton, A. (2017). A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity. Applied Geography, 82, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.03.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimpton, A., Pojani, D., Ryan, C., Ouyang, L., Sipe, N., & Corcoran, J. (2020a). Contemporary parking policy, practice, and outcomes in three large Australian cities. Progress in Planning, 100506, 100506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2020.100506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimpton, A., Pojani, D., Sipe, N., & Corcoran, J. (2020b). Parking behavior: Park ‘n’ ride (PnR) to encourage multimodalism in Brisbane. Land Use Policy 91(February)104304.

  • Lieske, S. N., van den Nouwelant, R., Han, J. H., & Pettit, C. (2019). A novel hedonic price modelling approach for estimating the impact of transportation infrastructure on property prices. Urban Studies https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019879382.

  • Lin, T., Xia, J., & Robinson, T. P. (2014). Spatial analysis of Park and Ride users’ dynamic accessibility to train station: A Case Study in Perth. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7885/09b98b97d4bc2057eaf81a8727e92dd15e6a.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2019.

  • Lin, T., Wang, D., & Guan, X. (2017). The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self-selection or residential determination? Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoud, M. S., Habib, K. N., & Shalaby, A. (2014). Park-and-ride access station choice model for cross-regional commuting: Case study of greater Toronto and Hamilton area, Canada. Transportation Research Record, 2419(1), 92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (2018). As shared scooters invade, San Francisco decides who belongs where. Wired.

  • McLaren, D., & Agyeman, J. (2015). Sharing cities: A case for truly smart and sustainable cities. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

  • Meek, S., Ison, S. G., & Enoch, M. P. (2008). Park and ride: Lessons from the UK experience. Transportation Research Board 87th annual meeting, 13–17 January 2008,. Washington DC.

  • Meek, S., Ison, S. G., & Enoch, M. (2009). Stakeholder perspectives on the current and future roles of UK bus-based park and ride. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(6), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2008.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millard-Ball, A. (2019). The autonomous vehicle parking problem. Transport Policy, 75, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2019.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingardo, G. (2013). Transport and environmental effects of rail-based park and ride: Evidence from the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2013.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. D. (1999). Demand management as an element of transportation policy: Using carrots and sticks to influence travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 33(7–8), 575–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving (Vol. 104, no. 9). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noel, E. C. (1988). Park-and-ride: Alive, well, and expanding in the United States. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 114(1), 2–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst, G. (1995). Park and ride: Could it lead to an increase in car traffic? Transport Policy, 2(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-070X(95)93242-Q.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst, G. (2000). Influence of bus-based park and ride facilities on users’ car traffic. Transport Policy, 7(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00006-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst, G., & Buxton, S. (2005). Towards a truly strategic appraisal process for evaluating park and ride schemes: The development of an assessment framework for London.

  • Parkhurst, G., & Meek, S. (2014). The effectiveness of park-and-ride as a policy measure for more sustainable mobility. In Parking Issues and Policies (pp. 185–211). Emerald Group publishing limited. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005020

  • Qin, H., Guan, H., & Wu, Y.-J. (2013). Analysis of park-and-ride decision behavior based on decision field theory. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2013.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.r-project.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, I., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1983). The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models. Environment and Planning A, 15(5), 623–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B., Hickman, M., & Nassir, N. (2019). Park-and-ride lot choice model using random utility maximization and random regret minimization. Transportation, 46(1), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J., & Walton, W. (2001). Labour’s new trunk-roads policy for England: An emerging pragmatic multimodalism? Environment and Planning A, 33(6), 1031–1056. https://doi.org/10.1068/a33202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirgaokar, M., & Deakin, E. (2005). Study of park-and-ride facilities and their use in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1927, 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Y. J., Lukman, A., Flacke, J., Zuidgeest, M., & Van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2017). Measuring TOD around transit nodes-towards TOD policy. Transport Policy, 56, 96–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sochor, J., Strömberg, H., & Karlsson, I. C. M. (2015). Implementing mobility as a service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2536(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3141/2536-01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L. J., & Gao, Z. Y. (2007). An equilibrium model for urban transit assignment based on game theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillar, R. J. (1997). Park-and-ride planning and design guidelines. 1995 William Barclay parsons fellowship parsons Brinckerhoff monograph 11. New York, NY: Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.

  • Stieffenhofer, K. E., Barton, M., & Gayah, V. V. (2016). Assessing park-and-ride efficiency and user reactions to parking management strategies. Journal of Public Transportation., 19, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.4.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieffenhofer, K. E., Barton, M., & Gayah, V. V. (2015). Assessing Park-and-ride use and user reactions to parking management strategies: A case study in Puget Sound. Washington: Journal of Public Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, F. (2015). The automobile, the city, and the new urban mobilities. In The City Reader (pp. 752–762). Routledge.

  • The Committee on Public Works. (1970). 1970 annual report on the demonstration fringe parking program. Washington, D.C.

  • Transport and Main Roads. (2019a). PnR parking supply for 2011 and 2016. Brisbane: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transport and Main Roads. (2019b). Park `n’ ride number plate survey. Brisbane: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transport and Main Roads. (2019c). State Controlled Roads - Queensland. https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/state-controlled-roads-queensland. Accessed 1 December 2019.

  • Tsang, F. W. K., Shalaby, A. S., & Miller, E. J. (2010). Improved modelling of park-and-ride transfer time: Capturing the within-day dynamics. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 39(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670390202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, K. F. (1995). Effective use of park-and-ride facilities. Texas: National Cooperative Highway Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2011). World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision. New York: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Acker, V., Van Wee, B., & Witlox, F. (2010). When transport geography meets social psychology: Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 30(2), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2013). Modern applied statistics with S-plus (4th ed.). New York: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.2307/2685660.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wardman, M., Lythgoe, W., & Whelan, G. (2007). Rail passenger demand Forecasting: Cross-Sectional Models Revisited. Research in Transportation Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0739-8859(07)20005-8

  • Wardrop, J. G. (1952). Road paper: Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1(3), 325–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willson, R. (2005). Replacement parking for joint development: An access policy methodology.

  • Zahabi, S. A. H., Miranda-Moreno, L. F., Patterson, Z., & Barla, P. (2012). Evaluating the effects of land use and strategies for parking and transit supply on mode choice of downtown commuters. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(2), 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Chen, P., Jiao, J., Chen, X., & Bischak, C. (2019). How does ‘park and ride’ perform? An evaluation using longitudinal data. Transport Policy, 74, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Y., Li, Y., Hao, M., & Yamamoto, T. (2019). A system of shared autonomous vehicles combined with park-and-ride in residential areas. Sustainability, 11(11), 3113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is conducted through a project funded by the Australian Research Council Linkage Project grant LP160100031 with additional support from the industry partner the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. Notably, the interpretations of the analysis are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads or any of its employees.

Funding

This study was funded by the Australian Research Council (LP160100031) with additional support from the industry partner the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Anthony Kimpton

Authors
  1. Anthony Kimpton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Kimpton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kimpton, A. Explaining the Railheading Travel Behaviour with Home Location, Park ‘N’ Ride Characteristics, and the Built Environment to Strengthen Multimodalism. Appl. Spatial Analysis 14, 525–546 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-020-09361-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-020-09361-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation