MOBILITY IN THE FRANKFURT/RHINE-MAIN REGION EVIDENCE FROM THE GERMAN NATIONAL TRAVEL SURVEY (NTS) Peter Endemann Planungsverband

Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main, Germany Andreas Maleika traffiQ Lokale Nahverkehrsgesellschaft1, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 1. TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR AND SURVEYING CONTEXT IN GERMANY The Western countries face plenty of major challenges in the future since a decrease in population and changes in its structure are expected. Together with a different economic framework, more variable work and retail time hours they have mutual effects with urban and regional development and need to be taken into consideration by planners when developing new concepts. Thus, the solutions for transport and traffic problems require more and more holistic approaches having in mind the complex interdependencies of economy and transport, population and mobility, spatial structure, landscape and environment. The knowledge of mobility and travel patterns of the population is therefore an indispensable ingredient in a planning process. The planning of public transport supply is one pertinent example figuring that we are on the crossroads. Uncertainty of demand structure and tremendous pressure because of fairly tight public budgets make clear that possible demand potentials have to be identified in order to increase the utilization of existing infrastructures in particular. In Germany, since the mid-seventies national travel surveys have been conducted in order to know more about the mobility of persons and households and travel demand as a tool to estimate future travel volumes and decide on infrastructure investments. This is especially true for the Western Germany KONTIV2 (continuous travel surveying) that has been conducted now for the fourth time since 1976. In Eastern Germany, the so-called SrV3 (system of representative travel surveys) started in the early-seventies and takes place in selected cities every five years. Currently, some Western German cities participate as well. While KONTIV covers all regions during the year and the entire week, SrV is concentrated on specific cities and weekdays such as Tuesday-to-Thursday. Data collection is done simultaneously and is limited to a two-to-three month period in a year (Ahrens, Lieke and Wittwer 2005). This period can be different as data collection for 1998 was in October/November and for 2003 between April and June (City of Frankfurt am Main 2001 and 2005). The new German National Household Travel Survey Mobility in Germany 2002 (MiD) is based on KONTIV, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Housing and includes for the first time both parts of the reunified Germany. MiD-Data contain substantial information on mobility, travel behaviour and mutual effects with spatial, socio-economic and sociodemographic characteristics. In order to analyse the different regions more indepth the sample size was increased for the entire Federal State of Hesse.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

This add-on was co-funded by the Planungsverband, the Government of Hesse and the Nordhessischer VerkehrsVerbund (NVV, Transport Association for Northern Hesse). A further description is presented in section 4. 2. OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES The paper aims at presenting the most relevant results from a brochure on the mobility in Rhine-Main and Hesse entitled Mobilitt in Stadt und Region (Mobility in City and Region) which has just been published (Planungsverband, traffiQ and NVV 2005). The paper thus wants to show the utility of MiD for the regional analysis and focuses therein on the comparison of Frankfurt and the adjacent City of Offenbach as the core of the region with the smaller and medium-sized cities within the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main agglomeration. Similarities and differences are elaborated in order to give some insights on how spatial context matters. Referring to this, the following questions are highlighted: At what time do most activities in the region or specifically in the core area with Frankfurt and Offenbach take place (day of the week, mode, purpose)? For which purposes do people travel in these areas, which mode do they use? What is the influence of the different transport options on the individuals behaviour? Are people fixed on one single mode? What are the mode usage habits and attitudes? How can planning strategies be assessed regarding their impact using the collected data (e.g. rail-oriented development, mixed-use planning)? 3. MOBILITY IN THE PRESENTATION AND SCOPE FRANKFURT/RHINE-MAIN REGION:

The Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region (pop. 2.18 Mio.) belongs to the Federal State of Hesse and encompasses 75 municipalities. It is part of the area covered by the so-called Rhein-Main Verkehrsverbund (RMV) which is the regional transport authority. Although it is a polycentric region with two cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants and several medium-sized cities, the City of Frankfurt (pop. 645,000) has quite an important role as the European capital of finance e. g. European Central Bank, Stock Exchange and economic, cultural, trade and transport hub of the region with one of the busiest railway stations in Europe (350,000 travellers daily), an important port and one of the major airports in the world. Next to Frankfurt is located Offenbach (pop. 119,500), the centre of design and leather business. Both cities represent one third of the total population and 50 % of all workplaces within the region and attract therefore a lot of travel demand. Nonetheless, there are some mediumsized cities with considerable employment concentrations such as back offices, medical services or car production like Opel visualising all the complexity planners have to deal with.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

The Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main is the Planning Authority for the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region and has the task to draft the first joint Regional and Land-Use Plan in Germany in co-operation with the Regierungsprsidium Sdhessen which is the Regional Planning Authority of Southern Hesse which the Planungsverband belongs to. The Planungsverband is further responsible for the Landscape Plan. When the Planungsverband was formed in 2001, available data on current travel behaviour and overall mobility within this agglomeration were lacking although a regional travel data base already existed. Data from MiD are needed first to up date this regional travel data basis VDRM (Verkehrsdatenbasis RheinMain)4 with respect to several travel behaviour indicators aiming to provide the corresponding model. Furthermore, the regional results of MiD provide substantial information on the travel behaviour and mobility characteristics and give some insights on the personal habits of use in this new region. It is therefore a valuable data base in order to generate behavioural homogeneous groups and to identify possible target groups for marketing purposes.

Hamburg

Berlin Hanover Rhine Cologne Hessen Planungsverband Frankfurt

FRANCE

Offenbach Main Karlsruhe

Strasbourg

Munich

Fig. 1: Location of the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region 4. METHODOLOGY OF MOBILITY IN GERMANY AND ADAPTATION TO THE REGION MiD is based on a joint telephone and postal survey. During the entire year 2002 25,000 households have been captured in this nationwide survey and have been asked to report their trips made on a specific day. MiD covers a wide range of factors that are outlined in fig. 2. According to this, for the first time, information on income, usage habits of citizens, availability of public transport, frequent business trips have been obtained5. Every survey has its specific characteristics. Consequently, comparability with other surveys or
Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

even former KONTIVs is sometimes difficult to realise. For example, MiD 2002 contains travel data from all people but only participants from 14 years old on have been asked for further details such as access to usual destinations, mode usage habits, car availability, public transport availability etc.
Household Person Trip

Household size Vehicle ownership Living area Profile of household

members

Income Mobile phone availability Computer availability Internet access

Age Sex Current situation Driving license Car availability Bicycle availability Season tickets Public transport access Mode usage habits Accessibility of usual
destinations Handicaps

Purpose Mode of transport Distance Time/duration Destination (if geo-coded) Regular business trips Private business trips Escorting persons

Explanations: red = New contents of MiD 2002

Only persons older than 13 years interviewed

Fig. 2: Characteristics of Mobility in Germany 2002 Regional add-on of MiD sample size Starting from initially 2,200 households the sample size now encompasses 8,761 households at the level of the Federal State of Hesse and 3,083 households for the Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Region. As outlined in section 2, within the agglomeration a distinction between the cities of the core area, Frankfurt and Offenbach, and the surroundings of the region is justified not only by geographical reasons but also through the existence of a radial infrastructure network and a predominance in terms of commercial and cultural infrastructures in the core area of the region (fig. 1). 5. SURVEY FINDINGS The following results refer either to figures with trip information on all persons and sometimes only from respondents over 13 years which is the case for most results related to individual characteristics. In this, distances travelled and location of place of residence to the next rail stop are subject to approximations given by the respondents. As the focus is on the relation between core area and surroundings figures on overall mobility and travel behaviour are included were necessary.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Car- and bicycle-oriented surrounding areas good public transport conditions in the core area Table 1 summarizes some basic mobility indicators describing the residents access to different transport modes. These mobility options are quite more extended in the municipalities around Frankfurt and Offenbach than in both large cities. Nearly nine from ten households in the surroundings do have a car but also 83 % reported having a bicycle at home. In Frankfurt and Offenbach every third household lives without a car and 29 % households do not have any bicycle. On the other hand, 31 % of the respondents aged 14 and more in Frankfurt and Offenbach reported using a season ticket6 compared to 16 % in the surroundings. The proximity of the residence place to a rail stop is in all areas higher and suggests potentials for additional patronage (table 1).
Tab. 1 Mobility options
Rhine-Main
Car ownership without car one car two and more cars Bicycle ownership without bicycle one bicycle two and more bicycle Public transport availability 21 25 54 19 56 25

Core area
Households (in %) 33 54 13 Households (in %) 29 30 41

Surroundings
11 56 33 17 21 62 42 16

Persons over 13 years (in %)

52 68 living 1 km to rail stop 22 31 season ticket n = 3,083 households respectively 5,804 persons over 13 years, Rhine-Main

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Around 86 % of people reported at least one trip per day. This corresponds to 88 % on working days and on Saturday but only 76 % on Sunday. Men were slightly more often out of home than their female counterparts. Both sexes do 3.2 trips on average. Thus, women were slightly more mobile while generating more trips when excluding persons who stayed at home (3.8 trips for women vs. 3.7 for men). Similarly, residents in the surroundings do 3.8 trips on average while in the core area 3.6 trips are made. Overall trip distances differ between the core cities and the surroundings. Although the mean distance of all trips is 24.6 km/mobile persons in the cities of the core area and therefore shorter than in the surroundings (28.7 km), people need on average 73.1 min. compared with 71.9 min. in the outskirts. Residents of the core area travel on average 6.8 km per trip and those of the surroundings with 7.6 km per trip. When discriminating for trip purposes, the distribution does not differ between both analysis areas. More surprisingly, fig. 3 illustrates that most trips in the region are made for apparently secondary purposes such as leisure (29 %) and shopping (20 %). 14 % are commuter trips, 5 % are made in relation to education purposes. Furthermore, 9 % of all trips are made aiming to accompany a person, 12 % have a private and social background. One of the
Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

new categories are the so-called regular business trips corresponding to every tenth trip. These are amongst others frequent business trips made by salesman, craftsmen, taxi driver or postal services. In the further paper, these trips will be ignored since they represent a high number of trips made by few individuals during their working time and would therefore obliterate the analysis of trip characteristics of all individuals. Furthermore, these trips are not included in the trip dataset.
Work 14% Regular business trips 10% Business 1% Escort 9% Private business 12% Education 5%

Leisure 29%

Shopping 20%

n = 26,440 trips, Rhine-Main Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 3: Trip purposes Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region (in %) Activities between women and men differ somewhat and may be an indicator reflecting the traditional role of each gender. This is especially true for purposes such as shopping, working and escorting people and extremely pertinent for regular business trips (fig. 4). The importance of worked-based trips is still weak when excluding regular business trips and increases up to 20 % on working days from Monday to Friday. Recreation and shopping trips correspond hence to 25 % respectively 21 %. On the weekend, leisure trips dominate with 73 % followed by social trips with 13 % on Sundays, and with 40 % on Saturdays. 37 % of all reported trips on Saturday are for shopping purposes, a typical shopping day in Germany. This figure might have increased since opening hours had been extended in 2003.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Female
Work 12% Leisure 31% Regular business trips 2% Business 1% Education 6% Escort 11% Leisure 27%

Male
Work 15% Regular business trips 18%

Business 2% Private business 14% Shopping 16% Education 5% Escort 7%

Shopping 24%

Private business 11%

n = 26,440 trips, Rhine-Main

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 4: Trip purposes by men/women Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region (in %) Trip timing: peak in public transport use in the surrounding areas Fig. 5 indicates that on a regular working day a real peak in travel demand in the region is lacking as distribution of trips is quite constant between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm. It also identifies a higher peak on Saturdays which is primarily due to shopping trips. The Sunday curve starts even later and shows a relative extended peak in the afternoon, a typical moment of recreation activities.
15%

Mo-Fr Saturday Sunday

10%

Week

5%

0%

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Trips per hour (startig time of trip, min. 00 to 59) n = 23,703 trips, Rhine-Main
Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 5: Distribution of trips by departure time in the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region Weekday, Saturday and Sunday (in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

While this distribution is quite similar in both areas of the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region the use of public transport reveals to be very different. According to fig. 6, namely the use of public transport oscillates in the surrounding areas with three peaks of demand which correspond to the typical commuting and school times. In the core area, public transport is used for different purposes. The curve shape is thus more self-balanced.
15%

Public transport - core area Public transport - surroundings Car - core area Car - surroundings
10%

5%

0%

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

n = 14,903 trips, Rhine-Main, car/public transport

Trips oper hour (Starting time, min. 00 to

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 6: Distribution of trips by departure time for car and public transport (in %) Overall modal split: individual transport modes preferred The modal-split differs between the core area and the surroundings of the agglomeration. While in both large cities Frankfurt and Offenbach residents use more green modes and 46 % the private car the situation in the surroundings is converse with a dominance in car use totalling 59 % of all trips. The use of public transport is in both areas low although people in the core area are more than twice likely to ride public transport. However, the bicycle is more used in the surrounding communities.
Rhine-Main 37 17 9 9 26 2

Core area Surroundings

0%

31 41

15

14 18
50%

7 6 10

32 1 23 2
100%

Car driver
n = 23,716 trips, Rhine-Main

Car passenger

Public transport

Bicycle

Walking

Other

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 7: Modal split of all trips (in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Trip purpose: higher share of bicycle use in the surroundings public transport as backbone in the core area The trip discrimination for purposes outlines weakness and strength of each mode more-in-depth but brings also some evidences on the differences between both parts of the region. People in the core area generate more than twice the percentage of public transport trips in the surroundings. However, motorised traffic dominates trips from and to workplaces everywhere. High proportions of car use are valid for all purposes in the surrounding areas with education trips as an exception. Residents in the core area walk more. Shopping trips reveal substantial differences. 44 % walking trips in the core correspond to 24 % in the surroundings where almost two third trips by car. In the surroundings bicycle use is higher for all purposes (fig. 8/9).
Core area 31 15 14 7 32 1

Work Education Escort Private business Shopping Leisure

0%

47 3 4 14 31 38 24 28 15 18 8 12 9 10
50%

31 5 28 5 16 5 5

9 2 47 0 30 0 30 1 44 1

29

35

100%

Car driver
n = 8,312 trips core area

Car Passenger

Public transport

Bicycle

Walking

Other

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 8: Modal split by trip purpose core area (in %)

Surroundings 41 18 6 10 23 2

Work Education Escort Private business Shopping Leisure

0%

64 8 21 42 49 44 29 20 3
50%

6 14 30 2 7 11 10

15

6 2 25 4 18 1 20 1 24 1 33 3
100%

27

15 3 19 2 11

Car driver
n = 15,367 trips, surroundings

Car Passenger

Public transport

Bicycle

Walking

Other

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 9: Modal split by trip purpose surroundings (in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Differences in travel behaviour might be better explained when including the proportion of distances travelled. Worked-based trips distances are among the longest with around two third of all trips longer than 5 km (fig. 10), a distance that is less suitable for bicycle but more interesting for public transport use. This is visualised by fig. 11 which tells also a different story on the distances travelled by car; 41 % of these trips are shorter than 5 %. With respect to shopping, few trips are within walking distance, in the surroundings even less. Studies show that the existence of shopping facilities beyond 700 m deters walking and favourites car use (Holz-Rau 1991). With respect to the other purposes, differences are less evident between both study areas. The example of leisure trips shows this with slightly shorter distances in the surroundings (fig. 10).
All trips 12 9 17 21 18 12 9 21

Core area

Shopping Work 2 3 Leisure 6 10 8

21 19

14

22 25

21 27 18 10

13

3 0

15 2 1 12 3 2

15

21

All trips

10

10

16

22

15

14

10 2 1

Surroundings

Shopping Work Leisure

0%

15 3 4 11 7 9

12 14 17

16 16 23
50%

25 24 16

14

11

27 4 1 12 8 22
100%

< 0,5 km 0,5 to < 1 km 10 to < 20 km 20 to < 50 km n = 23,716 trips, Rhine-Main

1 to < 2 km 50 to <100 km

2 to < 5 km 100 km and more

5 to < 10 km

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main

Fig. 10: Distribution of trip length according to purpose (in %)

Rhine-Main 10 10 16 22 16 13 10 2 1

Walking Bicycle Car (driver+pass.) 1 4 Public transport 1

0%

33 10 12 5 25
50%

23 27 24 26 21

25 31 18 26 11

14

41 5 3

13

15 3 2 15 1
100%

< 0,5 km 10 to < 20 km

0,5 to < 1 km 20 to < 50 km

1 to < 2 km 50 to <100 km

2 to < 5 km 100 km and more

5 to < 10 km

n = 23,299 trips, Rhine-Main Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 11: Distances travelled by mode of transport (in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Mode option: Every fifth trip by public transport among multi-modals What is being owned is being used is a motto which is pertinent for 69 % of all trips made by persons with permanent car availability in the surrounding areas but also for the same group living in the core of the region. When looking for people who possess a season ticket, the use of public transport is substantially higher than in the case of overall mode use. 34 % of those trips are made by public transport in the core area and still 25 % in the surrounding areas. Those persons do also use other green modes on a higher proportion than the group with permanent car access. If people have all mode choices, they use their daily mobility portfolio regardless of the area where they live which is confirmed for the use of public transport as in both areas nearly 20 % (fig. 12).
Permanent car access

Core area Surroundings

50 57

13

9 12 3

5 7

23 1 19 2

Season ticket

Core area Surroundings

19

10 30 13

34

6 25 9

29 1 20 2

Car+season ticket+bicycle

Core area Surroundings

0%

37 47

13 12
50%

20 3 19 4

24 3 14 3
100%

Car driver

Car passenger

Public transport

Bicycle

Walking

Other

n = 15,377 trips, permanent car access; 4,053 trips, season ticket; 1,828 trips, car+season ticket+bicycle
Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 12: Mode choice by mode availability (persons > 13 years, in %) Proximity of rail station has an impact on travel behaviour The proximity of a rail station is one important criterion to measure the impact of rail access. According to the existing literature, a 1,000 m radius has to be considered appropriate (Lchl, M. 2002; Endemann, Mller 2000). In both areas, people avoid to use their car in areas with rail access. But only in the core area public transport benefits considerably with 19 % of mode share while having direct access to a rail station compared to 7 % without a rail station in the neighbourhood. However, people walk or cycle on higher proportions. The rail effect is particularly valuable as 14 % use public transport in the core area when a rail station is nearby to the home and 5 % in the surroundings. In case of lacking sufficient accessibility to rail, the public transport use decreases to 6 % in Frankfurt/Offenbach and 3 % in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, the rail effect is shown for trips to and from work. 31 % within the core and 11 % outside commute every day by public transport. As the quality of public transport supply depends on further variables than only proximity to a rail station of either origin and destination, the observed effect of rail access with a higher proportion of public transport
Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

use ought to be even stronger and might also explain the relatively low figures in the surrounding areas.
Core area Surroundings 30 9 44 11 19 6 8 12 33 1 25 3

Rail stop over 1 km

Rail stop within 1 km

Core area Surroundings

0%

51 53
50%

14 12 5

6 8

22 20 2
100%

Car driver

Car passenger

Public transport

Bicycle

Walking

Other

n = 9.180 trips, core area, rail stop within 1 km; 9.024 trips, surroundings, rail stop over 1 km
Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 13: Comparison of modal split by rail access (persons > 13 years) The analysis of vehicles kilometres travelled is somewhat ambiguous. Fig. 14 reveals higher proportions of kilometres travelled by car in the core area regardless of rail accessibility. In the surroundings, the situation is similar but distances are generally lower. One explanation could be the higher proportions of leisure trips made by the residents in the core area (27.3 % vs. 23.5 % in the surroundings) and in the same time lower levels of motorised trips for shopping purposes (18.6 % vs. 22.5 %). As in the surroundings and in areas with a rail stop over 1 km volumes of motorised are higher, the fuel consumption might still be more extensive. Holz-Rau found similar results based on a commuter analysis (Holz-Rau 1997).
All car trips

Core area 1 2 Surroundings 1 5 Core area 2 2 Surroundings 1 6 Core area 1 1 Surroundings 1 3

0%

11 13 9 13 11 12
22 22

23 24

24 20 25
21

18 18 19 19 22 21 18

16 3 2 14 3 2 17 4 2 16 3 1 15 1 4 14 2 2
100%

Rail stop - Rail stop over 1 km within 1 km

19 23

26

50%

< 0,5 km 10 to <20 km

0.5 to <1 km 20 to <50 km

1 to < 2 km 50 to <100 km

2 to <5 km 100 km and more

5 to <10 km

n = 12,665 car trips, Rhine-Main

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 14: Comparison of car-distances travelled according to rail access (persons > 13 years, in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Pupils pretty car-dependent students reliable public transport customers non-employed very few The influence of the different life cycles is evident with changing behaviour according to the status. While young people and students tend to cycle, walk more and the latter reveal as frequent public transport users. Pensioners do it less. In 2002, within the RMV there was no special offer for pensioners or even non-employed persons. University students benefit instead from an interesting semester ticket at a low fare.
Core area 31 15 14 7 32 1

Pupils, 6 to 13 years Education, > 13 years Full-time employee Part-time employee Housewife/man Unemployed Retired

0 22

36 15

11

5 30 9 16 18 4 6

46 2 24 20 1

48 34 29 29 28
0%

8 14 13 13 5 12 11
50%

35 1 44 0

8 7 11

39 1 36 1
100%

n = 8,312 trips, core area

Car driver

Car passenger

Public transprt

Bicycle

Walking

Other

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 15: Modal split according to current situation core area (persons > 13 years, in %)
Surroundings 41 18 6 10 23 2

Pupils, 6 to 13 years Education, > 13 years Full-time employee Part-time employee Housewife/man Unemployed Retired

0 29

37 15

13 18 59 56 10 15 1 58 8 3 15 8 5 12 6 6 7 16 6

36

19 2 17 4 22 1 27 0 24 0 30 1
100%

45

39
0%

14 2
50%

Car driver
n = 15,367 trips, surrondings

Car passenger

Public transprt

Bicycle

Walking

Other

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 16: Modal split according to current situation surroundings (persons > 13 years, in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

The travel behaviour according to age types (not illustrated) are similar to the findings on the current situation of the interviewed person. Young children are escorted disproportionately by car (50 %). From ten years on children cycle definitely more. Once they reach their 18th birthday, car is getting a widely used option. Beside these differences, travel behaviour changes even more strongly once the core area is compared with the surroundings. The proportion of riding buses and trains is much higher in the core area than in the surroundings where once again cycling plays an important role. One remarkable fact are high figures of car passenger among children aged from six to 13 years. Despite the effect of life-cycle on travel behaviour differences between the core and surrounding area proved to be more evident. Frequency of use In the questionnaire, residents older than 13 years were asked to estimate their mode usage habits. It was found that in the core area, car use is less excessive than in the surroundings whereas 43 % of those residents use at least once a week their bicycle compared to 32 % in the core area. In the centre of the region, almost every second person never cycles. Public transport frequency of use is weaker in the surroundings.
Rhine-Main Core area
Car

53 40 61 32

31 10 5

73

7 13

Surroundings

30

51 3

Public transport

Rhine-Main Core area Surroundings 14

20 28 8

14

16 22 16 20

17 16 13

33 20 42

Rhine-Main
Bicycle

17 13 19
0%

22 19 10 24

11 9 12
50%

40 48 10 36
100%

Core area Surroundings

(almost) every day Less than once per month

1-3 days per week (almost) never

1-3 days per month

n = 5,804 persons over 13 years, Rhine-Main

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 17: Frequency of use in the view of residents (persons > 13 years, in %)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Accessibility to locations in the view of residents Fig. 18 suggests that almost everyone considers car accessibility of usual destinations better than with public transport. With respect to the latter, differences between the core area and the surroundings are more evident. This might be due to the better availability of public transport in the core area. This suggests that enlargement of the street and road network is not necessary and more efforts towards public transport have to be made. It would nevertheless be interesting to know to which extent missing experience with public transport use and overestimation of car accessibility among the respondents may have an impact.
Rhine-Main 51 42 56 33 7 35 4 52 7 13 37 4 3

Accessibility by car

Core Surroundings

Accessibility by public transport

Rhine-Main Core Surroundings

0%

35 50 25
50%

31

16 30

10 10 14

5 2
5 32

32

20

7 3
100%

very good

good

sufficient

bad

very bad

n/a

n = 5,804 interviewed persons over 13 years, Rhine-Main

Source: MiD 2002, analysed by Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and traffiQ

Fig. 18 Accessibility to usual destinations in the view of residents (persons > 13 years, in %) 6. CONCLUSIONS The application of the German National Household Survey to the regional context cannot explain travel behaviour in-depth. The study findings give nonetheless some insights on travel characteristics in the Frankfurt/RhineMain Region. Moreover, the results of MiD-analysis should encourage to pursue with some strategies as follows. The Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region is still not a region that never sleeps but it can be seen that activities take place during the whole day and at the weekends. The asymmetric curve of public transport use is one cause of high levels of public transport supply especially to satisfy travel demand for trips to schools in the morning. A more flexible timetable would help to decrease the number of required buses, reduce the costs and therefore avoid empty buses once pupils having dropped off (Fingerschuh, Stveken 2005). As few leisure trips are made with public transport but their proportion compared with other purposes is dominant, better public transport service is necessary especially during off-peak hours and at weekends. A good example

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

is the integrated transport system within the Federal State of RhinelandPalatinate where an increase of 67 % of train kilometres instead of originally estimated 87 % led to a plus of 85 % passenger during twelve years (Schreiner, Rey and Heilmann 2005). Figures suggest to support the idea of multi-modal mobility especially in the apparent car country outside of the big towns. Accordingly, people living in the surroundings are not automatically fixed on the car. This is especially true when comparing mode choice among persons with permanent car availability and for trips to and from work and further confirmed by the multi-modal profile of persons with all mobility options. Furthermore, people in the surroundings are frequent bicycle users, even more often than residents in both cities of the core which might be due to the different age structures and also to the absence of continuous high quality bicycle infrastructures especially in Frankfurt. A successful strategy might include car sharing offer at least to avoid the second, third car in the car country. An interesting example is the decentralised network of car sharing in the Rhine-Neckar Region.7 For public transport suppliers the results underline the necessity of a target group-oriented strategy. While students reveal as reliable customers and dispose of an attractive semester ticket, specific incentives towards nonemployed people should be strengthened and become more evident for elderly persons given the demographic context of an ageing society. A first step has been made in 2005 with the introduction of a monthly travelcard at reduced costs which is valid after 9 oclock. Youth-oriented strategies are already more common among public transport companies but still need to be improved. In order to avoid the purchase of a car, car sharing incentives are a viable option. Women could benefit from such a strategy since they dispose of a widespread activity portfolio. The figures suggest potentials for rail-oriented development combined with the planning goal of mixed-use settlements and newcomer packages including a test ticket, individualised marketing or reduced public transport passes for residents. Concerning the latter, specific ticket offers from housing companies for tenants already exist8. The idea of including a reduced public transport pass with the purchase of a flat or house has been introduced in the Hanover Region but might be further pushed9. Despite these measures one has to consider the size of settlement. As in other countries, regional planning strategies are based on Christallers theory of central places. Consequently, not every municipality will always be self-containing and needs therefore a regional balanced system in terms of a balanced job/residents ratio which requires access to medium-sized cities at reasonable distances. The system of decentralised concentration is in the debate although its effects on travel behaviour are still controversial (Holz-Rau 1997, Kagermeier 1997). According to the findings, cycling is a vital option since 60 % of all trips are shorter than 5 km. There are many reasons why people do not cycle though. Therefore, beside improvement of bicycle infrastructure more effort should be done in order to create a bicycle friendly climate. In the Frankfurt/RhineMain Region, there are several initiatives coping with this issue. One example

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

is the Frankfurt Round Table on Bicycle Planning and Marketing, directed by traffiQ and the bike+business project, an awareness campaign co-funded and steered by the Planungsverband aiming at improving the bicycle conditions for commuters. MiD: a useful tool for urban and regional planning ? Since MiD was not designed for spatial planning issues and appraisal of public transport use we consider it useful as it is conducted regularly. For the next generation, some contents may be added or existing modified according to the following: Own car or car sharing car used for each trip Own or transferred public transport ticket used for each trip Bicycle availability on reported day Accessibility of usual destinations with bicycle Accessibility of usual destinations discriminated for purposes Moving people (reasons, estimation of former usage habits) Regular business trips should be included in the dataset Geo-coding procedures need to be improved in order to avoid missings especially for leisure tips 7. REFERENCES Ahrens, G.-A., Lieke, F. and Wittwer, R. (2005) Mobilittsentwicklung ostdeutscher Stdte Ergebnisse des Systems reprsentativer Verkehrsbefragungen (SrV), in: Bracher, T. et al. (ed.), Handbuch der kommunalen Verkehrsplanung, 41st edition, Heidelberg City of Frankfurt am Main (2005) Entwicklung der Mobilitt, Frankfurt am Main City of Frankfurt am Main (2001) Mobilitt der Frankfurter Bevlkerung, Frankfurt am Main Endemann, P. Mller, G. (2000) Rail-oriented development potentials, impact, policies, Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Seminar D, 131-143 Fingerschuh, A., Stveken, P. (2005) Integrierte Optimierung des PNVAngebots und der Schulanfangszeiten, Straenverkehrstechnik, 49 (6) 281287 Follmer, R., Kunert, U. and Engert, J. (2004) Wie mobil sind die Deutschen, Der Nahverkehr, 22 (6) 8-17 Holz-Rau, C. (1997) Siedlungsstrukturen und Verkehr. Bundesforschungsanstalt fr Landeskunde und Raumordnung (ed.), Materialien zur Raumentwicklung, no. 84, Bonn

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Holz-Rau, C. (1991) Wechselwirkungen zwischen Siedlungsstruktur und Verkehr - Verkehrsverhalten beim Einkauf, Internationales Verkehrswesen, 43 (7/8) 377-386 Kagermeier, A. (1997) Siedlungsstruktur und Verkehrsmobilitt, Dortmunder Vertrieb fr Bau- und Planungsliteratur, Dortmund Lchl, Michael (2002) Schnellbus statt Schiene Eine Alternative zur Bedienung von Umland-Stadt-Beziehungen?, University of Dortmund, Faculty of Spatial Planning, Diploma thesis Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main, traffiQ Frankfurt and Nordhessischer VerkehrsVerbund (ed., 2005) Mobilitt in Stadt und Region, Frankfurt am Main Schreiner, W., Rey, G. and Heilmann, M. (2005) Erfolg mit Takt und Qualitt, Der Nahverkehr, 23 (7/8) 48-55

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

traffiQ is responsible for planning, organisation and marketing of the local public transport within the City of Frankfurt 2 KONTIV = Kontinuierliche Erhebungen zum Verkehrsverhalten 3 SrV = System reprsentativer Verkehrsbefragungen, since 2003 Mobilitt in Stdten SrV 4 VDRM is a recognised tool which is being used for all transport studies in the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region and is therefore subject to all infrastructure decisions in the region. It covers also parts from adjacent regions in order to map origin and destination of the all relevant flows affecting the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Region. 5 All relevant information on Mobility in Germany 2002 can be found on the internet. Please look at: http://www.mid2002.de/engl/index.htm. 6 Possible answers are: weekly, monthly or annual travelcards or specific so called Job-tickets for commuters or Semesterticket for university students 7 Look at: http://www.stadtmobil.de/start.html (map) and http://www.stadtmobil.de/rheinneckar/index.html (both only in German) 8 Some examples are quoted in: http://www.wohnen-plusmobilitaet.nrw.de/mob_service/projekte/index.html (only in German) 9 Through the web page quoted on the previous footnote information can be found on the GVHMobilCard for residents in Langenhagen-Weiherfeld (Hanover Region)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005