A modal share (also called mode split, mode-share, or modal split) is the percentage of travelers using a particular type of transportation or number of trips using said type.Glossary (Engineering Services – Transportation, City of Vancouver website. Accessed 2009-06-04.) In freight transportation, this may be measured in mass.

Modal share is an important component in developing sustainable transport within a city or region. In recent years, many cities have set modal share targets for balanced and sustainable transport modes, particularly 30% of non-motorized (cycling and walking) and 30% of public transport. These goals reflect a desire for a modal shift, or a change between modes, and usually encompasses an increase in the proportion of trips made using sustainable modes.

Comparability of data Modal share data is usually obtained by travel surveys, which are often conducted by local governments, using different methodologies. Sampling and interviewing techniques, definitions, the extent of geographical areas and other methodological differences can influence comparability. Most typical surveys refer to the main mode of transport used during trips to work. Surveys covering entire metropolitan areas are preferred over city proper surveys which typically cover only the denser inner city. the reference years in these lists span over two decades, making comparisons problematic, especially given changing population, new transportation infrastructure and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, among other factors.

Modal split of journeys to work The following tables present the modal split of journeys to work. It is better to use a measure of all trips on a typical weekday, but journey to work data is more readily available. It would also be beneficial to disaggregate private motor vehicles figures to car driver, car passengers and motorbikes (especially relevant for Asian cities).

Metropolitan areas with over 1,000,000 inhabitants

Metro area Walking Cycling Public transport Private motor vehicle YearSurvey areaCountry Adelaide 3% 1% 11% 85% 2016GCCSAAustralia Atlanta1%0%3%86%2016UAUSA Athens 8% 2% 37% 53% 2006Greece Auckland 5% 1% 12% 81% 2018MUANew Zealand Austin2%1%3%83%2019USA Baltimore3%0%7%84%2016UAUSA Bandung5%1%11%82%*2017UA *74% motorbikeIndonesia Banjarmasin2%3%93%2023UAIndonesia Barcelona 34.35% 2.28% 37.33% 26.04% 2018Spain Beijing 21% 32% 26% 21% 2005/2011China Belgrade 23% 1% 49% 27% 2015Serbia Berlin 34% 18% 26% 22% 2023Germany Brisbane 4% 1% 14% 81% 2016Charting Transport , retrieved 27 October 2017GCCSAAustralia Brussels 36% 9% 24% 29% 2022Belgium Bogotá 24% 7% 43% 15% 2019Colombia Boston 5% 1% 14% 73% 2016UAUSA Bucharest 31% 2% 27% 36% 2015Other (taxi): 4%Romania Budapest 32% 1% 47% 20% 2011Hungary Calgary4%1%8%84%2021CMACanada Chicago 7.1% 1.8% 20.5% 51% 2024USA Cologne 25% 19% 21% 35% 2017Germany Dallas 1% 0% 2% 90% 2016UAUSA Daejeon 26% 2% 28% 44% 2012[KOTI, "2013 National Transportation DB Report" 2013], retrieved 2013-12-31South Korea Delhi 21% 12% 48% 19% 2008/2011India Denpasar0%1%99%2023UAIndonesia Detroit1%0%2%92%2016USA Denver2%1%4%81%2020UAUSA Dhaka 19% 39% 29% 13% 2009Bangladesh Dublin18%7%15%59%2020Ireland Edmonton3%1%6%87%2021CMACanada Guangzhou 35% 19% 22% 23% 2021China Hamburg 22% 22% 24% 32% 2022Germany Helsinki 10.99% 9.34% 32.42% 46% 2016 MA, Other: 0.5%Finland Hong Kong 11% 0.5% 77% 12% 2011China Houston 1% 0% 2% 91% 2016UAUSA Indianapolis 1% 0% 1% 91% 2016UAUSA Jakarta 1% 0.2% 20% 78%* 2019UA *67% motorbikeIndonesia Kuala Lumpur 0.5% 0.5% 21% 78% 2018 Malaysia Las Vegas 1% 0% 4% 90% 2016UAUSA London 26% 2.5% 44.5% 27% 2020UK Los Angeles 3% 1% 5% 85% 2016UAUSA Madrid 34% 0.5% 25% 40% 2018Spain Makassar1%3%95%2023UAIndonesia Manila 9% 2% 44% 45% 2019Philippines Melbourne 4% 2% 19% 76% 2016GCCSAAustralia Medan0%1%20%78%*2019UA *70% motorbikeIndonesia Mexico City1%1%71%22%2019Mexico Miami2%1%4%87%2016UAUSA Milan 18% 10% 41% 29% 2014Italy Minsk 13% 1% 63% 20% 2016Belarus Montreal 5% 2% 22% 70% 2016CMACanada Mumbai 27% 6% 52% 15% 2008/2011India Munich 33% 21% 22% 24% 2023Germany Nagoya 15% 13% 30% 43% 2011Japan New York City 30.7% 1.1% 32.1% 30.2% 2019UAUSA Osaka 7% 19% 61% 13% 2010Japan Ottawa8%2%18%72%2016CMACanada Palembang2%13%83%2023UAIndonesia Paris 40% 2% 22% 34% 2020ParisiensFrance Perth 3% 1% 12% 84% 2016GCCSAAustralia Philadelphia 4% 1% 10% 80% 2016UAUSA Phoenix 2% 1% 2% 87% 2016UAUSA Portland 3% 3% 7% 78% 2016UAUSA Prague 35% 1% 37% 25% 2021Czech Republic Rio de Janeiro 29% 3% 43% 25% 2012UABrazil Rome 4%1%29%66%2014Italy San Antonio 2% 0% 3% 90% 2016UAUSA San Diego 3% 1% 3% 85% 2016UAUSA San Francisco 5% 2% 20% 64% 2016UAUSA San Jose 2% 2% 5% 84% 2016UAUSA Santiago 34.5% 4% 29.6% 25.7% 2012UAChile São Paulo 32% 1% 36% 31% 2017UABrazil Seattle 4% 1% 10% 77% 2016UAUSA SeoulN/A4%66%23%2014South Korea Shanghai 27% 20% 33% 20% 2009/2011China Singapore 22% 1% 44% 33% 2011Singapore SofiaN/AN/A73%27%2010Bulgaria Stockholm 14% 7% 47% 32% 2011Sweden Surabaya0%2%3%91%*2017UA *83% motorbikeIndonesia Sydney 5% 1% 27% 65% 2020DeloitteAustralia Taipei 13% 4% 43% 40% 2016Taiwan Tel Aviv 8.2% 4.3% 17.7% 62.5% 2022Israel Tokyo 23% 14% 51% 12% 2008/2009Japan Toronto 5% 1% 16% 76% 2021CMACanada Vancouver 6% 2% 15% 75% 2021CMACanada Vienna 30% 11% 34% 25% 2024, (German) retrieved2025-11-05Austria Warsaw 18% 3% 47% 32% 2015 , (Polish) retrieved 2016-01-20Poland Washington, D.C. 3% 1% 6% 56% 2022UAUSA

Metropolitan areas with over 250,000 inhabitants

Metro area walking cycling public transport private motor vehicle year Aarhus 7% 27% 19% 43% 2004 Alicante 18% 0% 13% 69% 2004 Amsterdam 5% 30% 19% 42% 2020 Bari 13% 1% 14% 72% 2001 Basel 33% 17% 27% 22% 2015 Bern 30% 15% 32% 22% 2015 Bilbao 68.1% 0.9% 19.6% 11.1% 2021Estudio de la Movilidad en la CAPV de 2021 Birmingham 1% 1% 25% 66% 2001 Bologna 8% 4% 21% 67% 2001 Bonn 28% 15% 17% 41% 2017 Bratislava 26.7% 1.6% 32.6% 37.7% 2014 Brno 5% 2% 57% 32% 2012 Buffalo 6% 1% 14% 79% 2012 Bremen 25% 25% 15% 36% 2018 Bristol 19% 8% 12% 55% 2011 Canberra 5% 3% 8% 85% 2016 Christchurch 4% 6% 5% 84% 2018 Copenhagen 30% 26% 18% 26% 2021 Córdoba 18% 1% 10% 71% 2004 Dortmund 19% 10% 22% 49% 2019 Dresden 26% 18% 20% 36% 2018 Dublin 13.2% 7.6% 21.5% 48.5% 2016 Düsseldorf 34% 13% 18% 35% 2017 Edinburgh 19% 7% 30% 42% 2009–2010 Eindhoven 3% 24% 8% 65% 2004 Essen 19% 7% 19% 55% 2019 Florence 8% 4% 21% 69% 2001 Frankfurt 11% 15% 30% 44% 2015 Freiburg im Breisgau 29% 34% 16% 21% 2017 Gent 15.6% 33.8% 11.2% 39% 2021 Gdańsk 20.8% 5.9% 32.1% 41.2% 2016 Gijón 24% 0% 17% 59% 2004 Gothenburg 12% 14% 21% 52% 2004 Graz 19% 19% 20% 42% 2018 The Hague 5% 22% 30% 43% 2004 Halifax 8% 1% 12% 78% 2016 Hamilton 4% 1% 10% 84% 2016 Hanover 26% 19% 19% 36% 2017 Kraków 28.4% 1.2% 36.3% 33.7% 2013 Las Palmas 15% 0.42% 13% 68% 2011 Lisbon 15.6% 2.5% 30.8% 50.2% 2020 Málaga 12% 0% 11% 77% 2004 Malmö 14% 26% 25% 34% 2018 Murcia 18% 1% 7% 74% 2004 Naples 13% 0% 26% 60% 2001 Nuremberg 30% 15% 23% 32% 2023 Oslo 32% 6% 31% 29% 2022 Palermo 12% 1% 9% 78% 2001 Pamplona 42% 2% 13% 41% 2013 Poznań 20.6% 8.4% 33.7% 37.3% 2019 Quebec City 2% 6% 11% 80% 2016 Rotterdam 5% 14% 25% 56% 2004 Seville 13% 7% 18% 62% 2014 Stuttgart 29% 8% 23% 40% 2017 Tallinn 14% 2% 34% 49% 2020 Tampere 10% 10% 14% 66% 2021 Turin 12% 3% 5% 79% 2004 Utrecht 25.3% 48.4% 5.4% 18.7% 2018 Valencia 16% 1% 21% 62% 2004 Valladolid 22% 1% 20% 57% 2004 Vigo 19% 0% 13% 68% 2004 Vilnius 36% 0% 26% 38% 2011Naujų transporto rūšių diegimo Vilniaus mieste specialusis planas , retrieved 2013-07-03 Vitoria-Gasteiz 45.6% 8.0% 9.5% 35.5% 2021Estudio de la Movilidad en la CAPV de 2021 Wellington 21% 4% 23% 49% 2018 Victoria (CMA)10%7%11%70%2016 Winnipeg 5% 2% 14% 79% 2016 Wrocław 24.2% 6.3% 27.6% 41.4% 2018 Zaragoza 45.91% 2.90% 23.71% 26.88% 2017 Zürich 33%12%32%21% 2015 Mean ± SD 13±8% 8±9% 24±13% 55±17% Notes: European data is based on the Urban AuditUrban Audit , retrieved 2009-10-03

Modal share targets The Charter of Brussels, signed by 36 cities including Brussels, Ghent, Milan, Munich, Seville, Edinburgh, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Gdansk, and Timișoara, commits the signatories to achieve at least 15% of bicycling modal share by 2020, and calls upon European institutions to do likewise.Charter of Brussels , retrieved 2009-10-03 The cycling modal share is strongly associated with the size of local cycling infrastructure.

The Canadian city of Hamilton adopted a similar modal share target plan in 2005.

Modal share in the developing world The modal share differs considerably depending on each city in the developing world.

According to UNECE, the global on-road vehicle fleet is to double by 2050 (from 1,2 billion to 2,5 billion, see introduction), with most future car purchases taking place in developing countries. Some experts even mention that the number of vehicles in developing countries will increase by 4 or 5-fold by 2050 (compared to current car use levels), and that the majority of these will be second-hand.

Legislation impacting the modal share Legislation can discourage car ownership through, for example, taxation and conditions on new car purchases). This could help in achieving a modal shift.

See also Air travel demand reduction Car ownership Circulation plan Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles Intermodal passenger transport Mobility transition Mode choice (the decisions that determine Modal share, especially in traffic analysis and forecasting) Mode of transport Motonormativity Rail usage statistics by country Road reallocation Environmental aspects of the electric car Smart mobility

Notes

External links Epomm – Modal share data for more than 300 Cities with more or less than 100,000 inhabitants, mostly in Europe – Modal share data and trends over the past 20 years for Australian cities (unpublished paper by David Ashley)

References