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.^[1] 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.^[2]

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.^[3] Surveys covering entire metropolitan areas are preferred over city proper surveys which typically cover only the denser inner city.

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

More information Metro area, walking ...

Metro area	walking	cycling	public transport	private motor vehicle	year	Survey Area	Country
Adelaide	3%	1%	11%	85%	2016[4]	GCCSA	Australia
Atlanta	1%	0%	3%	86%	2016[5]	UA	USA
Mexico City	1%	1%	71%	22%	2019[6]		Mexico
Athens	8%	2%	37%	53%	2006[7]		Greece
Auckland	5%	1%	12%	81%	2018[8]	MUA	New Zealand
Austin	2%	1%	3%	83%	2019[9]		USA
Baltimore	3%	0%	7%	84%	2016[10]	UA	USA
Barcelona	34.35%	2.28%	37.33%	26.04%	2018[11]		Spain
Beijing	21%	32%	26%	21%	2005/2011[12]		China
Belgrade	23%	1%	49%	27%	2015		Serbia
Berlin	30%	18%	27%	26%	2018		Germany
Brisbane	4%	1%	14%	81%	2016[13]	GCCSA	Australia
Brussels	36%	9%	24%	29%	2022[14]		Belgium
Bogota	15%	2%	64%	19%	2008[12]		Columbia
Boston	5%	1%	14%	73%	2016[15]	UA	USA
Bucharest	31%	2%	27%	36%	2015[16]	Other(Taxi): 4%	Romania
Budapest	32%	1%	47%	20%	2011		Hungary
Calgary	4%	1%	8%	84%	2021 [17]	CMA	Canada
Chicago	3%	1%	13%	77%	2016[18]	UA	USA
Cologne	25%	19%	21%	35%	2017[19]		Germany
Dallas	1%	0%	2%	90%	2016[20]	UA	USA
Daejeon	26%	2%	28%	44%	2012[21]		South Korea
Delhi	21%	12%	48%	19%	2008/2011[12]		India
Detroit	1%	0%	2%	92%	2016[22]		USA
Denver	2%	1%	4%	81%	2020[23]	UA	USA
Dhaka	19%	39%	29%	13%	2009[24]		Bangladesh
Dublin	18%	7%	15%	59%	2020[25]		Ireland
Edmonton	3%	1%	6%	87%	2021 [26]	CMA	Canada
Guangzhou	35%	19%	22%	23%	2021[27][28]		China
Hamburg	22%	22%	24%	32%	2022[29]		Germany
Helsinki	10.99%	9.34%	32.42%	46%	2016[30]	MA, Other: 0.5%	Finland
Hong Kong	11%	0.5%	77%	12%	2011[31]		China
Houston	1%	0%	2%	91%	2016[32]	UA	USA
Indianapolis	1%	0%	1%	91%	2016[33]	UA	USA
Jakarta	1%	0.2%	20%	78%*	2019[34]	UA *67% motorbike	Indonesia
Kuala Lumpur	6.6%	0.9%	36.8%	48.3%	2019[35]	Taxi 1%	Malaysia
Las Vegas	1%	0%	4%	90%	2016[36]	UA	USA
London	26%	2.5%	44.5%	27%	2020[37]		UK
Los Angeles	3%	1%	5%	85%	2016[38]	UA	USA
Madrid	34%	0.5%	25%	40%	2018[39]		Spain
Manila	9%	2%	44%	45%	2019[12]		Philippines
Melbourne	4%	2%	19%	76%	2016[13]	GCCSA	Australia
Miami	2%	1%	4%	87%	2016[40]	UA	USA
Milan	18%	10%	41%	29%	2014[41]		Italy
Minsk	13%	1%	63%	20%	2016[42]		Belarus
Montreal	5%	2%	22%	70%	2016[43]	CMA	Canada
Mumbai	27%	6%	52%	15%	2008/2011[12]		India
Munich	24%	18%	24%	34%	2017		Germany
Nagoya	15%	13%	30%	43%	2011[44]		Japan
New York City	30.7%	1.1%	32.1%	30.2%	2019[45]	UA	USA
Osaka	7%	19%	61%	13%	2010[46]		Japan
Ottawa	8%	2%	18%	72%	2016[47]	CMA	Canada
Paris	15%	5%	59%	20%	2010[48]		France
Perth	3%	1%	12%	84%	2016[13]	GCCSA	Australia
Philadelphia	4%	1%	10%	80%	2016[49]	UA	USA
Phoenix	2%	1%	2%	87%	2016[50]	UA	USA
Portland	3%	3%	7%	78%	2016[51]	UA	USA
Prague	35%	1%	37%	25%	2021[52]		Czech Republic
Rio de Janeiro	29%	3%	43%	25%	2012[53]	UA	Brazil
Rome	4%	1%	29%	66%	2014[54]		Italy
San Antonio	2%	0%	3%	90%	2016[55]	UA	USA
San Diego	3%	1%	3%	85%	2016[56]	UA	USA
San Francisco	5%	2%	20%	64%	2016[57]	UA	USA
San Jose	2%	2%	5%	84%	2016[58]	UA	USA
Santiago	34.5%	4%	29.6%	25.7%	2012[59]	UA	Chile
São Paulo	32%	1%	36%	31%	2017[60]	UA	Brazil
Seattle	4%	1%	10%	77%	2016[61]	UA	USA
Seoul	N/A	4%	66%	23%	2014[62]		South Korea
Shanghai	27%	20%	33%	20%	2009/2011[12]		China
Singapore	22%	1%	44%	33%	2011[12]		Singapore
Sofia	N/A	N/A	73%[lower-alpha 1]	27%	2010[63]		Bulgaria
Stockholm	14%	7%	47%	32%	2011[64]		Sweden
Sydney	5%	1%	27%	67%	2016[13]	GCCSA	Australia
Taipei	13%	4%	43%	40%	2016[65]		Taiwan
Tokyo	23%	14%	51%	12%	2008/2009[12]		Japan
Toronto	5%	1%	16%	76%	2021[66]	CMA	Canada
Toronto	8%	2%	26%	61%	2021[67]	City	Canada
Vancouver	6%	2%	15%	75%	2021[68]	CMA	Canada
Vancouver	13%	5%	23%	56%	2021[69]	City	Canada
Vienna	32%	10%	32%	26%	2023[70]		Austria
Warsaw	18%	3%	47%	32%	2015[71]		Poland
Washington, D.C.	3%	1%	6%	56%	2022[72]	UA	USA

Close

Metropolitan areas with over 250,000 inhabitants

More information Metro area, walking ...

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[73]
Bari	13%	1%	14%	72%	2001
Basel	33%	17%	27%	22%	2015[74]
Bern	30%	15%	32%	22%	2015[74]
Bilbao	23%	0%	34%	43%	2004
Birmingham	1%	1%	25%	66%	2001
Bologna	8%	4%	21%	67%	2001
Bonn	28%	15%	17%	41%	2017[75]
Bratislava	26.7%	1.6%	32.6%	37.7%	2014[76]
Brno	5%	2%	57%	32%	2012[77]
Buffalo	6%	1%	14%	79%	2012
Bremen	25%	25%	15%	36%	2018
Bristol	19%	8%	12%	55%	2011[78]
Canberra	5%	3%	8%	85%	2016[13]
Christchurch	4%	6%	5%	84%	2018[8]
Copenhagen	30%	26%	18%	26%	2021[79]
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[80]
Düsseldorf	34%	13%	18%	35%	2017[81]
Edinburgh	19%	7%	30%	42%	2009–2010[82]
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[83]
Gdańsk	20.8%	5.9%	32.1%	41.2%	2016[84]
Gijón	24%	0%	17%	59%	2004
Gothenburg	12%	14%	21%	52%	2004
Graz	19%	19%	20%	42%	2018[85]
The Hague	5%	22%	30%	43%	2004
Halifax	8%	1%	12%	78%	2016[86]
Hamilton	4%	1%	10%	84%	2016[87]
Hanover	26%	19%	19%	36%	2017
Kraków	28.4%	1.2%	36.3%	33.7%	2013
Las Palmas	15%	0.42%	13%	68%	2011[88]
Lisbon	15.6%	2.5%	30.8%	50.2%	2020[89]
Málaga	12%	0%	11%	77%	2004
Malmö	14%	26%	25%	34%	2018[90]
Murcia	18%	1%	7%	74%	2004
Naples	13%	0%	26%	60%	2001
Nuremberg	24%	14%	23%	39%	2019
Oslo	29%	6%	30%	34%	2013
Palermo	12%	1%	9%	78%	2001
Pamplona	42%	2%	13%	41%	2013[91]
Poznań	20.6%	8.4%	33.7%	37.3%	2019
Quebec City	2%	6%	11%	80%	2016[92]
Rotterdam	5%	14%	25%	56%	2004
Tel Aviv	16%	13%	28%	43%	2015[93]
Seville	13%	7%	18%	62%	2014
Stuttgart	29%	8%	23%	40%	2017[94]
Tallinn	14%	2%	34%	49%	2020[95]
Tampere	10%	10%	14%	66%	2021[96]
Turin	12%	3%	5%	79%	2004
Utrecht	25.3%	48.4%	5.4%	18.7%	2018[97]
Valencia	16%	1%	21%	62%	2004
Valladolid	22%	1%	20%	57%	2004
Vigo	19%	0%	13%	68%	2004
Vilnius	36%	0%	26%	38%	2011[98]
Wellington	21%	4%	23%	49%	2018[8]
Victoria (CMA)	10%	7%	11%	70%	2016
Winnipeg	5%	2%	14%	79%	2016[99]
Wrocław	24.2%	6.3%	27.6%	41.4%	2018
Zaragoza	45.91%	2.90%	23.71%	26.88%	2017[100]
Zürich	33%	12%	32%	21%	2015[74]
Mean ± SD	13±8%	8±9%	24±13%	55±17%

Close

Notes: European data is based on the Urban Audit^[101]

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.^[102] The cycling modal share is strongly associated with the size of local cycling infrastructure.^[103]

The Canadian city of Hamilton adopted a similar modal share target plan in 2005.^[104]

The modal share differs considerably depending on each city in the developing world.^{[105][106][107]}

According to UNECE, the global on-road vehicle fleet is to double by 2050 (from 1,2 billion to 2,5 billion,^[108] 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.^[13][109]

Through legislation (i.e. taxing and conditions on new car purchases), ... car ownership can be discouraged. This could help in achieving a modal shift.^[110]

• 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
• Rail usage statistics by country
• Road reallocation
• Environmental aspects of the electric car
• Smart mobility

• 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)