modal share

File:UK transport modal share from 1952-2014.png]]

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.[http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/glossary.htm Glossary] (Engineering Services – Transportation, City of Vancouver website. Accessed 2009-06-04.) {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060603041834/http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/glossary.htm |date=June 3, 2006 }} 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.{{Cite web|url=https://www.ramblers.org.uk/sitecore/content/Great%20Britain/Technical%20Pages/Error%20Pages/Page%20cannot%20be%20found.aspx?item=%2fwalking%2fpolicy%2ftransport%2ftransportleisure&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=ramblers|title=Page cannot be found - Ramblers|website=www.ramblers.org.uk|access-date=2021-08-31|archive-date=2016-03-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307042828/http://www.ramblers.org.uk/sitecore/content/Great%20Britain/Technical%20Pages/Error%20Pages/Page%20cannot%20be%20found.aspx?item=%2fwalking%2fpolicy%2ftransport%2ftransportleisure&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=ramblers|url-status=live}}

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.{{Cite web |url=http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/JOURNEYS_Nov2011%20Revised.pdf |title=Singapore Land and Transport Authority: Journeys, issue 7, November 2011 |access-date=2014-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714232541/http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/JOURNEYS_Nov2011%20Revised.pdf |archive-date=2014-07-14 }} Surveys covering entire metropolitan areas are preferred over city proper surveys which typically cover only the denser inner city.

Modal split of journeys to work

The following tables present the modal split of journeys to work. Note that 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=

width="150px" \| Metro area	width="75px" \|Walking	width="75px" \| Cycling	width="75px" \| Public transport	width="75px" \| Private motor vehicle	Year !Survey area !Country
class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
{{flagicon\|AUS}} Adelaide	3%	1%	11%	85%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://chartingtransport.com/2017/10/24/trends-in-journey-to-work-mode-shares-in-australian-cities-to-2016/\|title=Trends in journey to work mode shares in Australian cities to 2016 (second edition)\|date=2017-10-24\|work=Charting Transport\|access-date=2018-04-15\|language=en-US\|archive-date=2018-07-19\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719121703/https://chartingtransport.com/2017/10/24/trends-in-journey-to-work-mode-shares-in-australian-cities-to-2016/\|url-status=live}} \|GCCSA \|Australia
{{flagicon\|USA}} Atlanta \|1% \|0% \|3% \|86% \|2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US03817-atlanta-ga-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Atlanta, GA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073953/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US03817-atlanta-ga-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|MEX}} Mexico City	1%	1%	71%	22%	2019{{Cite magazine \|url=https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4331_Deloitte-City-Mobility-Index/Mexico_GlobalCityMobility_WEB.pdf \|title=Deloitte City Mobility Index: Mexico City \|magazine=Deloitte Insights}} \| \|Mexico
{{flagicon\|GRE}} Athens	8%	2%	37%	53%	2006{{Cite web \|url=http://www.epomm.eu/tems/result_city.phtml?city=221 \|title=TEMS - the EPOMM Modal Split Tool \|access-date=2016-08-12 \|archive-date=2016-08-22 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160822215616/http://www.epomm.eu/tems/result_city.phtml?city=221 \|url-status=live }} \| \|Greece
{{flagicon\|NZL}} Auckland	5%	1%	12%	81%	2018{{Cite web\|url=http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE8298\|title=Main means of travel to work by age group and sex, for the employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2018 Census\|website=nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz\|access-date=2022-05-18}} \|MUA \|New Zealand
{{flagicon\|USA}} Austin \|2% \|1% \|3% \|83% \|2019{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US4805000-austin-tx/\|title=Census profile: Austin, TX Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2022-03-07}} \| \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} Baltimore \|3% \|0% \|7% \|84% \|2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US04843-baltimore-md-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Baltimore, MD Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073951/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US04843-baltimore-md-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Barcelona	34.35%	2.28%	37.33%	26.04%	2018{{Cite web \|url=https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/premsa/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PMU-abstract-final-Premsa-20201201-v1-lowres.pdf \|title=Pla de Mobilitat Urbana 2024 \|access-date=2022-07-04 }} \| \|Spain
{{flagicon\|CHN}} Beijing	21%	32%	26%	21%	2005/2011{{Cite web \|url=http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/J11Nov-p60PassengerTransportModeShares.pdf \|title=Passenger Transport Mode Shares in World Cities \|access-date=2014-07-11 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715001906/http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/J11Nov-p60PassengerTransportModeShares.pdf \|archive-date=2014-07-15 }} \| \|China
{{flagicon\|SER}} Belgrade	23%	1%	49%	27%	2015 \| \|Serbia
{{flagicon\|GER}} Berlin	30%	18%	27%	26%	2018 \| \|Germany
{{flagicon\|AUS}} Brisbane	4%	1%	14%	81%	2016[https://chartingtransport.com/#mode Charting Transport] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171026214129/https://chartingtransport.com/#mode \|date=2017-10-26 }}, retrieved 27 October 2017 \|GCCSA \|Australia
{{flagicon\|BEL}} Brussels	36%	9%	24%	29%	2022{{cite web \| url=https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/05/23/brusselaar-fietst-meer-en-rijdt-minder-met-de-auto/ \| title=Brusselaar fietst meer en rijdt minder met de auto \| date=23 May 2023 }} \| \|Belgium
{{flagicon\|COL}} Bogota	15%	2%	64%	19%	2008 \| \|Colombia
{{flagicon\|USA}} Boston	5%	1%	14%	73%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US09271-boston-ma-nh-ri-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Boston, MA--NH--RI Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416074006/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US09271-boston-ma-nh-ri-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|ROU}} Bucharest	31%	2%	27%	36%	2015{{cite web \|url=https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bucharest-estimated-modal-share-2015-Source-Bucharest-SUMP_fig2_329168365 \|title=IMAGE: Bucharest estimated modal share 2015. Source: Bucharest SUMP \|via=ResearchGate}} \|Other (taxi): 4% \|Romania
{{flagicon\|HUN}} Budapest	32%	1%	47%	20%	2011 \| \|Hungary
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Calgary \|4% \|1% \|8% \|84% \|2021 {{Cite web\|url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=calgary&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1&DGUIDlist=2021S0503825&HEADERlist=50\|title=Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2023-10-17\|date=2022-03-29}} \|CMA \|Canada
{{flagicon\|USA}} Chicago	3%	1%	13%	77%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US16264-chicago-il-in-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Chicago, IL--IN Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073725/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US16264-chicago-il-in-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|GER}} Cologne	25%	19%	21%	35%	2017{{cite web \|last1=Klein \|first1=Benjamin \|title=Mobilität in Köln \|url=http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/MiDInK%C3%B6ln.pdf \|website=mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de \|publisher=City of Cologne \|access-date=2022-07-12 \|archive-date=2022-07-12 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220712185357/http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/MiDInK%C3%B6ln.pdf \|url-status=dead }} \| \|Germany
{{flagicon\|USA}} Dallas	1%	0%	2%	90%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US22042-dallas-fort-worth-arlington-tx-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073658/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US22042-dallas-fort-worth-arlington-tx-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|KOR}} Daejeon	26%	2%	28%	44%	2012[KOTI, "2013 National Transportation DB Report" 2013], retrieved 2013-12-31 \| \|South Korea
{{flagicon\|IND}} Delhi	21%	12%	48%	19%	2008/2011 \| \|India
{{flagicon\|USA}} Detroit \|1% \|0% \|2% \|92% \|2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US23824-detroit-mi-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Detroit, MI Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416134648/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US23824-detroit-mi-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \| \|USA
{{Flagicon\|United States}} Denver \|2% \|1% \|4% \|81% \|2020{{Cite web \|title=Census profile: Denver--Aurora, CO Urbanized Area \|url=http://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US23527-denver-aurora-co-urbanized-area/ \|access-date=2022-07-21 \|website=Census Reporter \|language=en}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|BGD}} Dhaka \| 19% \| 39% \| 29% \| 13% \| 2009{{Cite news\|date=March 2010\|url=https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11996782_01.pdf\|title=Dhaka Urban Transport Network Development Study\|access-date=2022-05-16\|publisher=Japan International Cooperation Agency}} \| \|Bangladesh
{{flagicon\|IRL}} Dublin \|18% \|7% \|15% \|59% \|2020{{Cite news\|url=https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4331_Deloitte-City-Mobility-Index/Dublin_GlobalCityMobility_WEB.pdf\|title=Deloitte City Mobility Index 2020\|work=Deloitte Insights\|access-date=2021-06-07\|archive-date=2021-06-07\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210607225032/https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4331_Deloitte-City-Mobility-Index/Dublin_GlobalCityMobility_WEB.pdf\|url-status=live}} \| \|Ireland
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Edmonton \|3% \|1% \|6% \|87% \|2021 {{Cite web\|url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=edmonton&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1&DGUIDlist=2021S0503835&HEADERlist=50\|title=Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2023-10-17\|date=2022-03-29}} \|CMA \|Canada
{{flagicon\|CHN}} Guangzhou	35%	19%	22%	23%	2021{{Cite web\|url=https://www.efchina.org/Attachments/Report/report-lccp-20230829/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%9F%8E%E5%B8%82%E7%BB%BF%E8%89%B2%E5%87%BA%E8%A1%8C%E5%8F%8A%E5%85%B6%E7%A2%B3%E6%8E%92%E6%94%BE%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E6%8A%A5%E5%91%8A.pdf\|title=Green Mobility and Carbon Emissions in Chinese Cities}}{{Cite web\|url=https://ghzyj.gz.gov.cn/attachment/7/7387/7387147/8479506.pdf\|title=Guangzhou Transport Development Annual Report 2021}} \| \|China
{{flagicon\|GER}} Hamburg	22%	22%	24%	32%	2022{{Cite web\|url=https://www.hamburg.de/bvm/medien/17104782/2023-05-08-bvm-mobilitaetswende/\|title=68 Prozent aller Wege wurden 2022 im Umweltverbund absolviert}} \| \|Germany
{{flagicon\|FIN}} Helsinki	10.99%	9.34%	32.42%	46%	2016{{Cite web \|title=Page 18: Kulkutapojen käyttö matkan tarkoituksen mukaan vuositasolla \|url=https://www.traficom.fi/sites/default/files/media/file/Seutujulkaisu-HLT2016-Helsingin-seutu.pdf \|access-date=2023-04-05}} \| MA, Other: 0.5% \|Finland
{{flagicon\|HKG}} Hong Kong	11%	0.5%	77%	12%	2011{{Cite web\|url=https://www.td.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_releases/publications/free_publications/travel_characteristics_survey_2011_final_report/index.html\|title=Transport Department - Travel Characteristics Survey 2011 - Final Report *Free copy can only be downloaded from this website\|website=www.td.gov.hk\|access-date=2020-11-02\|archive-date=2020-11-05\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201105192850/https://www.td.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_releases/publications/free_publications/travel_characteristics_survey_2011_final_report/index.html\|url-status=live}} \| \|China
{{flagicon\|USA}} Houston	1%	0%	2%	91%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US40429-houston-tx-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Houston, TX Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416134711/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US40429-houston-tx-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} Indianapolis	1%	0%	1%	91%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US41212-indianapolis-in-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Indianapolis, IN Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073844/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US41212-indianapolis-in-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|IDN}} Jakarta	1%	0.2%	20%	78%*	2019{{Cite web\|url=https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2019/12/04/eab87d14d99459f4016bb057/statistik-komuter-jabodetabek-2019.html\|title=Badan Pusat Statistik\|website=www.bps.go.id\|access-date=2020-02-06\|archive-date=2020-09-28\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200928045301/https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2019/12/04/eab87d14d99459f4016bb057/statistik-komuter-jabodetabek-2019.html\|url-status=live}} \|UA *67% motorbike \|Indonesia
{{flagicon\|MAS}} Kuala Lumpur	0.5%	0.5%	21%	78%	2018{{Cite web \|last=BERNAMA \|date=2021-10-11 \|title=- Kuala Lumpur As Enhanced Liveability Model City \|url=https://www.bernama.com/en/thoughts/news.php?id=2021871 \|access-date=2025-02-03 \|website=BERNAMA \|language=en}} \| \|Malaysia
{{flagicon\|USA}} Las Vegas	1%	0%	4%	90%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US47995-las-vegas-henderson-nv-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Las Vegas--Henderson, NV Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073715/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US47995-las-vegas-henderson-nv-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|UK}} London	26%	2.5%	44.5%	27%	2020{{cite web \|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945829/tsgb-2020.pdf \|title=Transport Statistics Great Britain 2020 \|publisher=Department for Transport \|place=London \|via=GOV.uk}} \| \|UK
{{flagicon\|USA}} Los Angeles	3%	1%	5%	85%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US51445-los-angeles-long-beach-anaheim-ca-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073828/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US51445-los-angeles-long-beach-anaheim-ca-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Madrid	34%	0.5%	25%	40%	2018{{cite web \|title=Encuesta de movilidad de la Comunidad de Madrid 2018 - Documento de síntesis \|url=https://www.crtm.es/media/712934/edm18_sintesis.pdf \|access-date=2020-06-02 \|archive-date=2020-12-01 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201201210049/https://www.crtm.es/media/712934/edm18_sintesis.pdf \|url-status=live }} \| \|Spain
{{flagicon\|PHI}} Manila	9%	2%	44%	45%	2019 \| \|Philippines
{{flagicon\|AUS}} Melbourne	4%	2%	19%	76%	2016 \|GCCSA \|Australia
{{flagicon\|USA}} Miami \|2% \|1% \|4% \|87% \|2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US56602-miami-fl-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Miami, FL Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073929/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US56602-miami-fl-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Milan	18%	10%	41%	29%	2014{{cite web \|title=Piano Urbano per la Mobilità Sostenibile (PUMS) della Città metropolitana di Milano \|url=https://www.cittametropolitana.mi.it/export/sites/default/PUMS/doc/Quadro_Conoscitivo-PUMS-Cm_di_Mi.pdf \|website=cittametropolitana.mi.it \|publisher=Città metropolitana di Milano \|access-date=12 April 2021 \|page=150 \|archive-date=12 April 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412060252/https://www.cittametropolitana.mi.it/export/sites/default/PUMS/doc/Quadro_Conoscitivo-PUMS-Cm_di_Mi.pdf \|url-status=live }} \| \|Italy
{{flagicon\|Belarus}} Minsk	13%	1%	63%	20%	2016{{Cite web \|url=http://news.tut.by/society/513013.html \|title=Опрос: минчане добираются до работы или учебы примерно за полчаса \|access-date=2016-09-22 \|archive-date=2016-09-22 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160922131318/http://news.tut.by/society/513013.html }} \| \|Belarus
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Montreal	5%	2%	22%	70%	2016{{Cite web\|url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=462&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Montreal&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey%20to%20work&TABID=1\|title=Census Profile, 2016 Census – Montréal [Census metropolitan area], Quebec and Quebec [Province]\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2021-08-31\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160314/https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=462&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Montreal&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey+to+work&TABID=1\|url-status=live}} \|CMA \|Canada
{{flagicon\|IND}} Mumbai	27%	6%	52%	15%	2008/2011 \| \|India
{{flagicon\|GER}} Munich	33%	21%	22%	24%	2023{{Cite web \|date=2025 \|title=Mobilitätssteckbrief für München \|url=https://muenchenunterwegs.de/content/3099/download/munchen-steckbrief-tu-dresden.pdf \|website=München Unterwegs}} \| \|Germany
{{flagicon\|JPN}} Nagoya	15%	13%	30%	43%	2011{{Cite web\|url=https://www.ido.city.nagoya.jp/machidukuri/genjo/traffic.html \|script-title=ja:代表交通手段割合｜名古屋市の交通の現状｜交通まちづくり \|language=ja \|publisher=City of Nagoya \|access-date=13 May 2023}} \| \|Japan
{{flagicon\|USA}} New York City	30.7%	1.1%	32.1%	30.2%	2019{{Cite web \|date=2019 \|title=Mobility Report \|url=https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/mobility-report-singlepage-2019.pdf \|website=NYC Department of Transportation}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|JPN}} Osaka	7%	19%	61%	13%	2010{{cite web \|title=大阪市における人の動き：平成 22 年第５回近畿圏パーソントリップ調査集計結果から \|url=https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/toshikeikaku/cmsfiles/contents/0000177/177205/hitonougoki.pdf \|website=第5回パーソントリップ調査 \|publisher=Osaka City Hall \|access-date=7 April 2021 \|pages=8 \|archive-date=30 June 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210630231343/https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/toshikeikaku/cmsfiles/contents/0000177/177205/hitonougoki.pdf \|url-status=live }} \| \|Japan
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Ottawa \|8% \|2% \|18% \|72% \|2016{{Cite web\|url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=505&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Ottawa&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey%20to%20work&TABID=1\|title=Census Profile, 2016 Census – Ottawa – Gatineau [Census metropolitan area], Ontario/Quebec and Ontario [Province]\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2021-08-31\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160315/https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=505&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Ottawa&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey+to+work&TABID=1\|url-status=live}} \|CMA \|Canada
{{flagicon\|FRA}} Paris	40%	2%	22%	34%	2020{{Cite web \|title=Diagnostic du Plan Local de Mobilité \|url=https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2024/03/29/partie-1-diagnostic-vf-web-qwWQ.pdf \|access-date=2025-03-24 \|page=11}} \|Parisiens \|France
{{flagicon\|AUS}} Perth	3%	1%	12%	84%	2016 \|GCCSA \|Australia
{{flagicon\|USA}} Philadelphia	4%	1%	10%	80%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US69076-philadelphia-pa-nj-de-md-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416134629/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US69076-philadelphia-pa-nj-de-md-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} Phoenix	2%	1%	2%	87%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US69184-phoenix-mesa-az-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Phoenix--Mesa, AZ Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073911/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US69184-phoenix-mesa-az-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} Portland	3%	3%	7%	78%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US71317-portland-or-wa-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Portland, OR--WA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073914/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US71317-portland-or-wa-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|CZE}} Prague	35%	1%	37%	25%	2021{{Cite book \|url=https://www.tsk-praha.cz/static/udi-rocenka-2021-cz.pdf \|title=Ročenka dopravy 2021 \|publisher=Technická správa komunikací hl. m. Prahy, a.s. \|year=2022 \|location=Prague \|pages=19 \|language=cs}} \| \|Czech Republic
{{flagicon\|BRA}} Rio de Janeiro	29%	3%	43%	25%	2012{{Cite news\|url=http://www.peu.poli.ufrj.br/arquivos/Monografias/Joao_Vitor.pdf\|title=Page 41 in Monografia UFRJ 2015\|work=João Victor Costa\|access-date=2020-05-15\|archive-date=2020-12-04\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201204141544/http://peu.poli.ufrj.br/arquivos/Monografias/Joao_Vitor.pdf\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|Brazil
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Rome	4%	1%	29%	66%	2014{{Cite web\|url=http://www.epomm.eu/endurance/index.php?id=2809&city=344\|title=ENDURANCE :: Countries/Cities\|last=FGM-AMOR\|website=www.epomm.eu\|access-date=2018-04-27\|archive-date=2018-04-28\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180428094304/http://www.epomm.eu/endurance/index.php?id=2809&city=344\|url-status=live}} \| \|Italy
{{flagicon\|USA}} San Antonio	2%	0%	3%	90%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US78580-san-antonio-tx-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: San Antonio, TX Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073931/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US78580-san-antonio-tx-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} San Diego	3%	1%	3%	85%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US78661-san-diego-ca-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: San Diego, CA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073916/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US78661-san-diego-ca-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} San Francisco	5%	2%	20%	64%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US78904-san-francisco-oakland-ca-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: San Francisco--Oakland, CA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416134643/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US78904-san-francisco-oakland-ca-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|USA}} San Jose	2%	2%	5%	84%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US79039-san-jose-ca-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: San Jose, CA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416073810/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US79039-san-jose-ca-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|CHL}} Santiago	34.5%	4%	29.6%	25.7%	2012{{Cite web\|url=http://www.sectra.gob.cl/encuestas_movilidad/encuestas_movilidad.htm\|title=Encuestas de Movilidad SECTRA\|access-date=2021-11-17}} \|UA \|Chile
{{flagicon\|BRA}} São Paulo	32%	1%	36%	31%	2017{{Cite news\|url=http://www.metro.sp.gov.br/pesquisa-od/arquivos/Ebook%20Pesquisa%20OD%202017_final_240719_versao_4.pdf/\|title=Page 39 in Pesquisa OD 2017\|work=Metrô\|access-date=2020-05-15\|archive-date=2020-06-06\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200606124131/http://www.metro.sp.gov.br/pesquisa-od/arquivos/Ebook%20Pesquisa%20OD%202017_final_240719_versao_4.pdf\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|Brazil
{{flagicon\|USA}} Seattle	4%	1%	10%	77%	2016{{Cite news\|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US80389-seattle-wa-urbanized-area/\|title=Census profile: Seattle, WA Urbanized Area\|work=Census Reporter\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2018-04-16\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416074008/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US80389-seattle-wa-urbanized-area/\|url-status=live}} \|UA \|USA
{{flagicon\|KOR}} Seoul \|N/A \|4% \|66% \|23% \|2014{{Cite web\|url=https://www.kdevelopedia.org/download.do?timeFile=/mnt/idas/asset/2017/02/08/DOC/PDF/04201702080147174073584.pdf&originFileName=%5BPT5%5D%20%EA%B9%80%EC%B0%BD%EA%B7%A0%20%EA%B5%90%EC%88%98%EB%8B%98_KDI%EB%B0%9C%ED%91%9C(%EB%8C%80%EC%A4%91%EA%B5%90%ED%86%B5201611).pdf\|title=Public Transport in Seoul Metropolitan – K-Developedia\|date=2014\|website=K Developedia\|access-date=16 August 2019\|archive-date=26 January 2021\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126123008/https://www.kdevelopedia.org/download.do?timeFile=%2Fmnt%2Fidas%2Fasset%2F2017%2F02%2F08%2FDOC%2FPDF%2F04201702080147174073584.pdf&originFileName=%5BPT5%5D%20%EA%B9%80%EC%B0%BD%EA%B7%A0%20%EA%B5%90%EC%88%98%EB%8B%98_KDI%EB%B0%9C%ED%91%9C%28%EB%8C%80%EC%A4%91%EA%B5%90%ED%86%B5201611%29.pdf\|url-status=live}} \| \|South Korea
{{flagicon\|CHN}} Shanghai	27%	20%	33%	20%	2009/2011 \| \|China
{{flagicon\|SGP}} Singapore	22%	1%	44%	33%	2011 \| \|Singapore
{{Flagicon\|Bulgaria}} Sofia \|N/A \|N/A \|73%{{efn\|Result achieved using the percentage of commuters using PT (63%) plus Taxi (3%) and additionally marshrutkas (7%).}} \|27% \|2010{{Cite web\|title=The World Bank {{!}} Fare Collection Systems - Sofia, Bulgaria\|url=https://www.ssatp.org/sites/ssatp/files/publications/Toolkits/Fares%20Toolkit%20content/case-studies/sofia,-bulgaria.html\|access-date=2021-08-13\|website=www.ssatp.org\|archive-date=2021-08-13\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210813115326/https://www.ssatp.org/sites/ssatp/files/publications/Toolkits/Fares%20Toolkit%20content/case-studies/sofia,-bulgaria.html\|url-status=live}} \| \|Bulgaria
{{flagicon\|SWE}} Stockholm	14%	7%	47%	32%	2011{{cite encyclopedia\|last=Koglin\|first=Till\|contribution=Urban Velomobility and the Spatial Problems of Cycling\|title=Experiencing Networked Urban Mobilities\|date=January 2018\|pages=112–118 \|publisher=Routledge\|doi=10.4324/9781315200255-20\|isbn=978-1-315-20025-5 }} \| \|Sweden
{{flagicon\|AUS}} Sydney	5%	1%	27%	65%	2020{{Cite web \|date=2020 \|title=Deloitte City Mobility Index 2020 \|url=https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4331_Deloitte-City-Mobility-Index/Sydney_GlobalCityMobility_WEB.pdf \|access-date=October 12, 2024 \|website=Deloitte}} \|Deloitte \|Australia
{{flagicon\|TWN}} Taipei	13%	4%	43%	40%	2016{{cite web \|last1=Taipei City Hall \|title=市政統計週報 \|url=http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/news_weekly/S4_2/106934.htm \|access-date=19 October 2018 \|archive-date=20 October 2018 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181020011522/http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/news_weekly/S4_2/106934.htm \|url-status=live }} \| \|Taiwan
{{flagicon\|ISR}} Tel Aviv	8.2%	4.3%	17.7%	62.5%	2022{{Cite web \|date=2022 \|title=Census Data 2022 \|url=https://census.cbs.gov.il/en/geographic-area?id=1fd1aec&tabName=Labour%20and%20wages}} \| \|Israel
{{flagicon\|JPN}} Tokyo	23%	14%	51%	12%	2008/2009 \| \|Japan
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Toronto	5%	1%	16%	76%	2021{{Cite web\|url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=toronto&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1&DGUIDlist=2021S0503535&HEADERlist=50\|title=Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2023-10-17\|date=2022-03-29}} \|CMA \|Canada
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Vancouver	6%	2%	15%	75%	2021{{cite web\|title=Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population\|url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=vancouver&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1&DGUIDlist=2021S0503933&HEADERlist=50\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2023-10-18\|date=2023-03-29}} \|CMA \|Canada
{{flagicon\|AUT}} Vienna	32%	10%	32%	26%	2023{{Cite news\|url=https://www.fahrradwien.at/2024/03/22/wir-sind-erstmals-zweistellig-%F0%9F%99%8C-modal-split/\|title=Wir sind erstmals zweistellig – Modal Split\|access-date=2024-03-22}}, (German) \| \|Austria
{{flagicon\|POL}} Warsaw	18%	3%	47%	32%	2015[http://transport.um.warszawa.pl/sites/default/files/WBR%202015%20ETAP%20III%20Raport.pdf] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160817150550/http://transport.um.warszawa.pl/sites/default/files/WBR%202015%20ETAP%20III%20Raport.pdf\|date=2016-08-17}}, (Polish) retrieved 2016-01-20 \| \|Poland
{{flagicon\|USA}} Washington, D.C.	3%	1%	6%	56%	2022{{Cite news \|title=Census profile: Washington, DC--VA--MD Urbanized Area \|url=https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US92242-washington-dc-va-md-urbanized-area/ \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240127191409/https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US92242-washington-arlington-dc-va-md-urban-area/ \|archive-date=2024-01-27 \|access-date=2024-01-27 \|work=Census Reporter}} \|UA \|USA

=Metropolitan areas with over 250,000 inhabitants=

width="150px" \| Metro area	width="75px" \| walking	width="75px" \| cycling	width="75px" \| public transport	width="75px" \| private motor vehicle	year
class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
{{flagicon\|DEN}} Aarhus	7%	27%	19%	43%	2004
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Alicante	18%	0%	13%	69%	2004
{{flagicon\|NED}} Amsterdam	5%	30%	19%	42%	2020{{cite web \|url= https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4331_Deloitte-City-Mobility-Index/Amsterdam_GlobalCityMobility_WEB.pdf \|title=Amsterdam Global City Mobility Index 2020}}
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Bari	13%	1%	14%	72%	2001
{{flagicon\|SUI}} Basel	33%	17%	27%	22%	2015{{Cite web\|url=https://www.mobilitaet.bs.ch/dam/jcr:aa8aa166-f637-49ac-afd5-831744c3e74c/staedtevergleich_2015.pdf\|title=Städtevergleich Mobilität Vergleichende Betrachtung der Städte Basel, Bern, Luzern, St.Gallen, Winterthur und Zürich im Jahr 2015\|access-date=2020-06-14\|archive-date=2020-06-14\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200614114014/https://www.mobilitaet.bs.ch/dam/jcr:aa8aa166-f637-49ac-afd5-831744c3e74c/staedtevergleich_2015.pdf}}
{{flagicon\|SUI}} Bern	30%	15%	32%	22%	2015
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Bilbao	23%	0%	34%	43%	2004
{{flagicon\|UK}} Birmingham	1%	1%	25%	66%	2001
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Bologna	8%	4%	21%	67%	2001
{{flagicon\|GER}} Bonn	28%	15%	17%	41%	2017{{Cite web \|date=2019-02-21 \|title=Aktuelle Ergebnisse zur Alltagsmobilität \|url=https://www.agfs-nrw.de/fileadmin/Events-Kampagnen/AGFS-Kongress/2019/AGFS-Kongress_2019_MiD-2017_Follmer.pdf \|access-date=2022-07-12 \|website=agfs-nrw.de}}
{{flagicon\|SVK}} Bratislava	26.7%	1.6%	32.6%	37.7%	2014{{Cite web\|date=2015-12-18\|title=Územný generel dopravy hl. mesta SR Bratislavy\|url=https://bratislava.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Dokumenty/UGD_zhrnutie.pdf \|website=bratislava.sk\|publisher=Centrum dopravního výzkumu, v.v.i.\|language=sk}}
{{flagicon\|CZ}} Brno	5%	2%	57%	32%	2012{{Cite web \|url=http://www.brno.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/sprava_mesta/magistrat_mesta_brna/OD/dokumenty_OKD/delba_prepravni_prace/Delba_prepravni_prace_2012.pdf \|title=Archived copy \|access-date=2017-09-02 \|archive-date=2015-09-23 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923194717/http://www.brno.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/sprava_mesta/magistrat_mesta_brna/OD/dokumenty_OKD/delba_prepravni_prace/Delba_prepravni_prace_2012.pdf \|url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|USA}} Buffalo	6%	1%	14%	79%	2012
{{flagicon\|GER}} Bremen	25%	25%	15%	36%	2018
{{flagicon\|UK}} Bristol	19%	8%	12%	55%	2011{{cite web \|url=http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/environment/greener_living/transport/Overall%20Commuter%20Count%20Results%202013.pdf \|title=Archived copy \|access-date=2013-12-04 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140724182420/http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/environment/greener_living/transport/Overall%20Commuter%20Count%20Results%202013.pdf \|archive-date=2014-07-24 }}
{{flagicon\|AUS}} Canberra	5%	3%	8%	85%	2016
{{flagicon\|NZL}} Christchurch	4%	6%	5%	84%	2018
{{flagicon\|DEN}} Copenhagen	30%	26%	18%	26%	2021{{cite web \|url= https://www.kk.dk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Mobilitetsredeg%C3%B8relsen%202023.pdf \|title=Copenhagen Mobility}}
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Córdoba	18%	1%	10%	71%	2004
{{flagicon\|GER}} Dortmund	19%	10%	22%	49%	2019
{{flagicon\|GER}} Dresden	26%	18%	20%	36%	2018
{{flagicon\|IRE}} Dublin	13.2%	7.6%	21.5%	48.5%	2016{{Cite web\|url=https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nts/nts2016/hwt/\|title=How We Travelled - CSO - Central Statistics Office\|access-date=2020-01-29\|archive-date=2019-11-15\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191115034629/https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nts/nts2016/hwt/\|url-status=live}}
{{flagicon\|GER}} Düsseldorf	34%	13%	18%	35%	2017{{Cite web \|date=2019-02-21 \|title=Aktuelle Ergebnisse zur Alltagsmobilität \|url=https://www.agfs-nrw.de/fileadmin/Events-Kampagnen/AGFS-Kongress/2019/AGFS-Kongress_2019_MiD-2017_Follmer.pdf \|access-date=2022-07-12 \|website=agfs-nrw.de}}
{{flagicon\|UK}} Edinburgh	19%	7%	30%	42%	2009–2010{{Cite web \|url=https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/24509/local-transport-strategy-2014---2019 \|title=Archived copy \|access-date=2020-12-22 \|archive-date=2021-08-31 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160313/https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/24509/local-transport-strategy-2014---2019 \|url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|NED}} Eindhoven	3%	24%	8%	65%	2004
{{flagicon\|GER}} Essen	19%	7%	19%	55%	2019
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Florence	8%	4%	21%	69%	2001
{{flagicon\|GER}} Frankfurt	11%	15%	30%	44%	2015
{{flagicon\|GER}} Freiburg im Breisgau	29%	34%	16%	21%	2017
{{flagicon\|BEL}} Gent	15.6%	33.8%	11.2%	39%	2021{{Cite web \| url=https://stad.gent/nl/mobiliteit-openbare-werken/mobiliteit/plannen-projecten-subsidies-cijfers-scholenwerking/mobiliteit-cijfers \| title=Verplaatsingsgedrag van de Gentenaar in 2021 2021 \| access-date=2023-10-23 \| archive-date=2019-12-25 \| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191225232639/https://stad.gent/nl/mobiliteit-openbare-werken/mobiliteit/plannen-projecten-subsidies-cijfers-scholenwerking/mobiliteit-cijfers \| url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|POL}} Gdańsk	20.8%	5.9%	32.1%	41.2%	2016{{Cite web \| url=http://www.brg.gda.pl/planowanie-przestrzenne/inne-opracowania-urbanistyczne/282-gdanskie-badania-ruchu-2016 \| title=Gdańskie Badania Ruchu 2016 \| access-date=2017-10-20 \| archive-date=2017-10-20 \| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020135812/http://www.brg.gda.pl/planowanie-przestrzenne/inne-opracowania-urbanistyczne/282-gdanskie-badania-ruchu-2016 \| url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Gijón	24%	0%	17%	59%	2004
{{flagicon\|SWE}} Gothenburg	12%	14%	21%	52%	2004
{{flagicon\|AUT}} Graz	19%	19%	20%	42%	2018{{Cite web \| url=https://www.graz.at/cms/beitrag/10192604/8032890/Mobilitaetsverhalten.html \| title=Verkehrsmittelaufteilung - Modal Split \| access-date=2020-07-08 \| archive-date=2020-10-01 \| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201001080041/https://www.graz.at/cms/beitrag/10192604/8032890/Mobilitaetsverhalten.html \| url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|NED}} The Hague	5%	22%	30%	43%	2004
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Halifax	8%	1%	12%	78%	2016{{Cite web\|last=Government of Canada\|first=Statistics Canada\|date=2017-02-08\|title=Census Profile, 2016 Census - Halifax [Census metropolitan area], Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia [Province]\|url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=205&Geo2=PR&Code2=12&SearchText=halifax&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey%20to%20work&TABID=1&type=1\|access-date=2020-08-05\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|archive-date=2021-08-31\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160314/https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=205&Geo2=PR&Code2=12&SearchText=halifax&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey+to+work&TABID=1&type=1\|url-status=live}}
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Hamilton	4%	1%	10%	84%	2016{{Cite web\| url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=537&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&SearchText=hamilton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey%20to%20work&TABID=1&type=1\| title=Census Profile, 2016 Census - Hamilton [Census metropolitan area], Ontario and Ontario [Province]\| access-date=2020-08-04\| archive-date=2021-08-31\| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160314/https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=537&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&SearchText=hamilton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey+to+work&TABID=1&type=1\| url-status=live}}
{{flagicon\|GER}} Hanover	26%	19%	19%	36%	2017
{{flagicon\|POL}} Kraków	28.4%	1.2%	36.3%	33.7%	2013
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Las Palmas	15%	0.42%	13%	68%	2011{{Cite web \|orig-date=2011 \|title=Asistencia técnica para la elaboración de una estrategia de movilidad sostenible en el municipio de las palmas de gran canaria programa de actuaciones \|url=https://www.laspalmasgc.es/export/sites/laspalmasgc/es/online/sede-electronica/Planes-Gestion-ambiental-/ProgramaActuaciones-PMUS.pdf \|website=www.laspalmasgc.es \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230119161336/https://www.laspalmasgc.es/export/sites/laspalmasgc/es/online/sede-electronica/Planes-Gestion-ambiental-/ProgramaActuaciones-PMUS.pdf \|archive-date=19 Jan 2023 \|page=142}}
{{flagicon\|POR}} Lisbon	15.6%	2.5%	30.8%	50.2%	2020{{Cite web \|orig-date=2020 \|title=Observatórios Lisboa \|url=https://observatorios-lisboa.pt/info_mobilidade.html}}
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Málaga	12%	0%	11%	77%	2004
{{flagicon\|SWE}} Malmö	14%	26%	25%	34%	2018{{Cite web \|orig-date=2018 \|title=Travel Habits of Residents \|url=https://malmo.se/Fakta-och-statistik/Facts-and-statistics-in-english/Travel-habits-of-residents.html \|website=www.malmo.se \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511111258/https://malmo.se/Fakta-och-statistik/Facts-and-statistics-in-english/Travel-habits-of-residents.html \|archive-date=11 May 2021 }}
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Murcia	18%	1%	7%	74%	2004
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Naples	13%	0%	26%	60%	2001
{{flagicon\|GER}} Nuremberg	30%	15%	23%	32%	2023{{Cite web\|url=https://www.vag.de/ihre-vag/publikationen/mobilitaetsfakten#gallery%5B3849%5D \|title=Mobilitätsfakten }}
{{flagicon\|NOR}} Oslo	29%	6%	30%	34%	2013
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Palermo	12%	1%	9%	78%	2001
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Pamplona	42%	2%	13%	41%	2013{{Cite web\|url=https://participartepmus.es/sites/default/files/diagnostico.pdf}}
{{flagicon\|POL}} Poznań	20.6%	8.4%	33.7%	37.3%	2019
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Quebec City	2%	6%	11%	80%	2016{{Cite web\|last=Government of Canada\|first=Statistics Canada\|date=2017-02-08\|title=Census Profile, 2016 Census - Québec [Census metropolitan area], Quebec and Quebec [Province]\|url=https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=421&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&SearchText=quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1&type=0\|access-date=2020-08-05\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|archive-date=2021-08-31\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160317/https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=421&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&SearchText=quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1&type=0\|url-status=live}}
{{flagicon\|NED}} Rotterdam	5%	14%	25%	56%	2004
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Seville	13%	7%	18%	62%	2014
{{flagicon\|GER}} Stuttgart	29%	8%	23%	40%	2017{{cite web \|url=https://www.stuttgart-steigt-um.de/mobilitaetsformen/motorisierter-individualverkehr/ \|title=Motorisierter Individualverkehr (MIV)}}
{{flagicon\|EST}} Tallinn	14%	2%	34%	49%	2020{{cite web \|url=https://www.tallinn.ee/est/g2677s140714 \|title=Statistical Yearbook Of 2021 \|publisher=Tallinn City Government}}
{{flagicon\|FIN}} Tampere	10%	10%	14%	66%	2021{{cite web \|url=https://www.traficom.fi/sites/default/files/media/file/HLT%202021%20seutujulkaisu%20Tampereen%20kaupunkiseutu.pdf \|title=Henkilöliikennetutkimus 2021: Tampereen kaupunkiseutu \|publisher=Traficom}}
{{flagicon\|ITA}} Turin	12%	3%	5%	79%	2004
{{flagicon\|NED}} Utrecht	25.3%	48.4%	5.4%	18.7%	2018{{Cite web \| author=CBS \| author-link=Statistics Netherlands \| url=https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_pdf/2020/14/modal-split-2018-gemeente-utrecht-maart-2020.pdf \| title=Verplaatsingen in de gemeente Utrecht naar vervoerwijze, 2018 \| access-date=2020-12-14 \| archive-date=2021-01-26 \| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126123003/https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_pdf/2020/14/modal-split-2018-gemeente-utrecht-maart-2020.pdf \| url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Valencia	16%	1%	21%	62%	2004
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Valladolid	22%	1%	20%	57%	2004
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Vigo	19%	0%	13%	68%	2004
{{flagicon\|LTU}} Vilnius	36%	0%	26%	38%	2011[http://old.vilnius.lt/transportas/koncepcija/vilniaus_koncepcija_2011.09.15.pdf Naujų transporto rūšių diegimo Vilniaus mieste specialusis planas] {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203051048/http://old.vilnius.lt/transportas/koncepcija/vilniaus_koncepcija_2011.09.15.pdf \|date=2013-12-03 }}, retrieved 2013-07-03
{{flagicon\|NZL}} Wellington	21%	4%	23%	49%	2018
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Victoria (CMA) \|10% \|7% \|11% \|70% \|2016
{{flagicon\|CAN}} Winnipeg	5%	2%	14%	79%	2016{{Cite web\|url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=602&Geo2=PR&Code2=46&Data=Count&SearchText=Winnipeg&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey%20to%20work&TABID=1\|title=Census Profile, 2016 Census – Winnipeg [Census metropolitan area], Manitoba and Manitoba [Province]\|last=Canada\|first=Government of Canada, Statistics\|website=www12.statcan.gc.ca\|language=en\|access-date=2018-04-16\|archive-date=2021-08-31\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831160317/https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=602&Geo2=PR&Code2=46&Data=Count&SearchText=Winnipeg&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Journey+to+work&TABID=1\|url-status=live}}
{{flagicon\|POL}} Wrocław	24.2%	6.3%	27.6%	41.4%	2018
{{flagicon\|ESP}} Zaragoza	45.91%	2.90%	23.71%	26.88%	2017{{cite web \|title=Revisión del plan de movilidad urbana sostenible Zaragoza \|url=https://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/movilidad/PMUS/abril2019/PMUS-ZGZ_PROPUESTAS_MEMORIA-FINAL_A3.pdf \|access-date=2 June 2020 \|archive-date=25 January 2021 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125231127/https://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/movilidad/PMUS/abril2019/PMUS-ZGZ_PROPUESTAS_MEMORIA-FINAL_A3.pdf \|url-status=live }}
{{flagicon\|SUI}} Zürich	33%	12%	32%	21%	2015
Mean ± SD	13±8%	8±9%	24±13%	55±17%

Notes: European data is based on the Urban Audit[http://www.urbanaudit.org Urban Audit] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090206144738/http://urbanaudit.org/ |date=2009-02-06 }}, retrieved 2009-10-03

Notes

External links

[http://www.epomm.eu/tems/index.phtml Epomm – Modal share data for more than 300 Cities with more or less than 100,000 inhabitants, mostly in Europe] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331223214/http://www.epomm.eu/tems/index.phtml |date=2014-03-31 }}
[http://www.ashley-transport-modelling.com/papers/commutinginaustraliancities.pdf] – Modal share data and trends over the past 20 years for Australian cities (unpublished paper by David Ashley)