Volume List  / Volume 11 (4)



DOI: 10.7708/ijtte2021.11(4).10

11 / 4 / 629 - 639 Pages


Sreela Parambath Koyilerian - Government Engineering College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India -

M V L R Anjaneyulu - National Institute of Technology, Calicut, Kerala, India -


Technological developments in small or medium sized cities are often at a slower rate due to the lack or scarcity of funds. Proper planning of facilities in such cities should hence be executed meticulously. This requires an understanding of travel needs of individuals. As majority of the travel are made for work the study aims to explore the activity and travel preferences of workers. Majority of the commuters are likely to travel at the same time of day, causing congestion during peak hours. Under these circumstances, it is essential to explore the commuting behaviour of individuals. It also aids transportation engineers and planners to recognise individual preferences for arriving at user friendly strategies and a sustainable environment. The aim of the study is to identify the travel related choice of work commute. These choice dimensions are explored through activity participation model, mode and time of day choice models using multinomial and binary logit modelling approaches incorporating the socio–demographic characteristics. Modelling results underscore the importance of variables like gender, age and presence of school children on an individual’s decision to commute. The study indicates that majority of the workers prefer public transportation for commuting. They are more likely to commute between 8 am to 10 am in the morning. Scenario analyses were done to understand the shifts in travel mode of workers, with changes in travel time. These results highlight the substantial impact of travel time on mode share of commuters in the area.

Download Article

Number of downloads: 102


The authors sincerely acknowledge the funding from the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India through the Centre of Excellence (CoE) in Urban Transport and Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras. The authors thank the residents of Calicut for their cooperation in the data collection process.


Barkume, A.J.; Horvath, F.W. 1995. Using Gross flows to explore movements in the labour force, Monthly Labor Review 118(4): 28-35.


Bhat, C.R. 1997. Work travel mode choice and a number of non-work commute stop, Transportation Research Part B 31(1): 41-54. Available from Internet: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/23985.


Enam, A.; Choudhury, C. F. 2011. Methodological Issues in Developing Mode Choice Models for Dhaka, Bangladesh, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2239 (1): 84–92. doi:10.3141/2239-10.


Ghareib, A. H. 1996. Evaluation of logit and probit models in mode-choice situation, Journal of Transportation Engineering 122(4): 282-290.


Habib, K. M. N. 2012. Modeling commuting mode choice jointly with work start time and work duration, Transportation research part A: Policy and practice 46(1): 33-47.


Hensher, D. A.; Rose, J. M. 2007. Development of Commuter and Non Commuter Mode Choice Models for the Assessment of New Public Transport Infrastructure Projects: Case Study, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(5): 428-443.


Li, M. T.; Chow, L. F.; Zhao, F. 2005. Application of geographically stratified importance sampling in the calibration of aggregated destination choice models for trip distribution. In Proceedings of the 83th Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.


Lu, X.; Pas, E.I. 1999. Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behaviour, Transportation Research Part A 33(1): 1-18.


Mensah, J. 1995. Journey to work and job characteristics of the urban poor, Transportation 22(1): 1-19.


Muralidhar, B.; Mathew, T. V.; Dhingra, S. L. 2006. Prototype time-space diary design and administration for a developing country, Journal of Transportation Engineering 132(6): 489–498.


Ory, D.T.; Mokhtarian, P.L. 2005. Don't work, work at home, or commute? Discrete choice models of the decision for San Francisco Bay Area residents. Research Report, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, USA. 35p.


Richardson, A.J.; Ampt, E.S.; Meyburg, A.H. 1995. Survey methods for Transport Planning. Eucalyptus Press, University of Melbourne, Australia. 75-145p. DOI: 10.4237/transportes.v5i1.272.


Roorda, M. J.; Passmore, D.; Miller, E. J. 2009. Including Minor Modes of Transport in a Tour-Based Mode Choice Model with Household Interactions, Journal of Transportation Engineering 135(12): 935–945.


Stopher, P. R.; Sheskin, I. M. 1982. Method for determining and reducing non-response bias, Transportation Research Record 886: 35-41.


Williams, D.R. 1995. Women’s part-time employment: a gross flows analysis, Monthly Labor Review 118(4): 36-44.


Yang, M.; Wang, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, W.; Xu, R.; Gu, T. 2010. Modeling Destination Choice Behavior Incorporating Spatial Factors, Individual Socio demographics, and Travel Mode, Journal of Transportation Engineering 136(9): 800–810.