Transport Research Centre

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE

Centro de Investigación del Transporte

SOCIAL DRIVERS OF

GENDER-BASED MOBILITY PATTERNS

IN MADRID.

By Andrés Monzón, Cristina Valdés and Geng Xue

TRANSyT WORKING PAPER RESEARCH SERIES 2008-02 EN

SOCIAL DRIVERS OF GENDER-BASED MOBILITY PATTERNS IN 1 MADRID

Andrés Monzón: Professor of Transport. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

Cristina Valdés: Doctorate Researcher, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

Geng Xue: Researcher from Beijing University of Technology.

TWP-2008-02-EN

1 Cite as: Monzón, A., Valdés, C. and Xue, G. “Social Drivers of Gender‐Based Mobility Patterns In Madrid”. TRANSyT Working Paper 2008‐02‐EN. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 OBJECTIVES ...... 2 2 MADRID REGION AND ITS DEMOGRAPHIC AND MOBILITY TRENDS ...... 2 2.1 Population ...... 2 2.2 General mobility trends in the Madrid Region ...... 2 2.3 Zonification ...... 3 3 GENERAL MOBILITY: DIFFERENCES BY GENDER ...... 5 3.1 Car availability and use ...... 5 3.2 Trip purpose ...... 5 3.3 General characteristics ...... 6 3.4 Working trips ...... 7 4 GENDER‐BASED MODAL SPLIT ...... 9 4.1 All‐purpose trips ...... 9 4.2 Working trips ...... 12 4.3 Comparison between total trips and working trips ...... 15 5 LOCATION AND WORKING TRIP CHARACTERISTICS ...... 16 5.1 Trips inside macrozones ...... 16 5.2 Private car use ...... 18 5.3 Working trip distance ...... 20 6 ECONOMIC LEVEL AND CAR USE ...... 22 7 MOBILITY PATTERNS AND NATIONALITY ...... 24 7.1 Trip purpose ...... 24 7.2 Gender‐based modal split differences ...... 24 8 GENERAL RESULTS ...... 26 8.1 Conclusions ...... 26 8.2 Gender‐based mobility drivers ...... 27

1 OBJECTIVES

Mobility patterns in the Madrid Region have experienced considerable changes over the past decade. There are two main causes for this: population growth and urban sprawl. Analyses have been carried out, targeted to explain these changes and their consequences for public transport and car-oriented demand in each part of the region. Most of these studies however make aggregated analyses of different mobility issues.

This report attempts to look at mobility in the Madrid Region from a different angle. We attempt to analyse the differences between women and men, whether they use the same transport modes, whether their trips have the same characteristics, etc. After a general analysis of gender-based mobility, we focus our analysis on working trips, where differences are higher because women and men have different roles in our society.

Finally we complete the study with a brief analysis of gender-based mobility patterns among foreign travellers in the Madrid Region.

2 MADRID REGION AND ITS DEMOGRAPHIC AND MOBILITY TRENDS

2.1 Population

Madrid is experiencing a rapid population growth as shown in the following figures. This growth has been associated with a substantial suburbanisation process that has had a powerful influence on mobility patterns (length and number of trips) and car dependence.

Graph 1 Population evolution and distribution in the Madrid Region

6.000.0006,000,000

350.110350,110 241,635 190,026 241.635 5,000,0005.000.000 190.026

2,354,8852.354.885 4,000,0004.000.000 1,613,5061.613.506 1,913,8041.913.804 CBD 3,000,0003.000.000

2,000,0002.000.000 3,102,8463.102.846 3,099,8343.099.834 2,866,8502.866.850 1,000,0001.000.000

0 1988 1996 2004 2.2 General mobilityMadrid trends City in theMetropolitan Madrid RegionRing Regional Ring

Two decades ago there was a clear predominance of public transport patronage in motorised trips. The population trends expressed in the previous section have produced two effects: the steady growth in the number of daily trips and the increasing use of cars, which now account for about the same amount of trips as Public Transport (PT).

Graph 2 Mobility Trends in the Madrid Region

Trips (000) Motorised Daily Trips in Working Days 6,000 PT car 5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 1988 1996 2004

The modal split depends to a great extent on population density. Public transport patronage is very good (over 50%) in central areas while it is much lower in the periphery.

Graph 3 Mobility Patterns in Different Zones of the Madrid Region

Modal Split in the Madrid Region (2004) 100% 90% 80% 36% 50% 70% 63% 60% 72% 50% 40% 30% 64% 50% 20% 37% 10% 28% 0% Madrid City Metropolitan Regional Ring Total Madrid Ring Region

Public Transport Car

2.3 Zonification

The mobility data given have been extracted from the Madrid Mobility Survey 2004 conducted by the Consorcio Regional de Transportes of the Madrid Region 2 . They have been aggregated by municipalities (179) and Madrid City districts (21) to make a total of 200 zones.

However, it is necessary to use another zoning system for analysing trip distances and location of workplaces, known as macrozones. The macrozones have been formed by aggregating the 200 zones into 21 macrozones corresponding to the three rings of Madrid and their intersection with the eight radial corridors (see Fig. 1).

Other analyses are related to the different rings of the Madrid Region, as shown in Graph 1.

2 The authors are very grateful to the Mobility Unit of the Consorcio Regional de Transportes for the data provided and its continuous support.

Macrozones in Madrid

Code Macrozones Rings 1 Madrid Centre Madrid CBD 2 Madrid North 3 Madrid East Ring I: Madrid City 4 Madrid South 5 Madrid West 6 Metropolitan M-607 corridor (Colmenar) 7 Metropolitan A-1 corridor (N-1) 8 Metropolitan A-2 corridor (Henares) 9 Metropolitan A-3 corridor (N-III) Ring II: 10 Metropolitan A-4 corridor (N-IV) Metropolitan 11 Metropolitan A-42 corridor (Fuenlabrada) 12 Metropolitan A-5 corridor (N-V) 13 Metropolitan A-6 corridor (N-VI) 14 Regional M-607 corridor (Colmenar) 15 Regional A-1 corridor (North) 16 Regional A-2 corridor (Henares) 17 Regional A-3 corridor (N-III) Ring III: Regional 18 Regional A-4 corridor (N-IV) 19 Regional A-42 corridor (Fuenlabrada) 20 Regional A-5 corridor (N-V) 21 Regional A-6 corridor (N-VI)

3 GENERAL MOBILITY: DIFFERENCES BY GENDER

3.1 Car availability and use

As shown in the graph, 70% of men hold a car driving licence, which is 16% higher than in the case of women. A total of 72% of women do not use a car even if they hold a driving licence. At the same time, 43% of men use cars, meaning that men have double the access to car use than women, 37 versus 19 per cent.

Graph 4 Driving licence and car use

Driving licence and car use

75% 70%

60% 54% 43% 45% 37% 28% 30% 19%

15%

0% Car driving licence Car use among Car use among total driving licenceholders population

Men Women

3.2 Trip purpose

There are considerable differences between genders in trip purpose. The proportion of working trips for men is 17% higher than for women. On the other hand, women make more trips for shopping and accompanying another person. This just proves women spend more trips on family-based errands. These results also prove that women play a different social role in the workplace and in the family environment. Men do very little shopping and accompanying of children or the elderly but concentrate more on the world of work. On the other hand, the gender-based proportion of leisure and study trips is very similar.

Graph 5 Trip purpose

Trip purpose 50% 46% 45%

40% 35% 29% 30% 25% 23% 21% 20% 18% 18% 15% 15% 9% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 5%

0% Working trips Study Shopping Leisure Accompanying Others another person

Men Women

3.3 General characteristics

From the graph below we see that women have higher mobility patterns than men in general, 0.14 more trips/day on average. Men make more trips outside their zone of origin while women behave in the opposite way. In other words, women make more trips, but shorter ones. These findings seem to be related to the differences in trip purpose as previously analysed.

Graph 6 Inside- and outside-zone trips per person

Graph 7 Trip distribution according to relative origin/destination zones

Trips according to origin/destination zones 100%

35% 80% 45%

60% 14% 15% 40%

51% 20% 40%

0% Men Women O/D different macrozone Inside macrozone: O/D different zone Inside zone

In terms of origin and destination, trips can be split into three categories: trips made inside a zone; trips inside the same macrozone, but with origin and destination in different zones; and trips with origin and destination in different macrozones. The survey shows that women make more trips inside-zone (near the homeplace), while men make more trips to another macrozone: the differences are about 10%. There is almost no difference between genders for trips inside a macrozone, both are quite low.

3.4 Working trips3

Graph 8 Inside- and outside-zone working trips per person

Inside and outside working trips/person among the working population

2.50 2.15 2.17 2.00 1.70 1.62 1.50

1.00 0.56 0.44 0.50

0.00 Inside zone Outside zone Total trips

Men Women

As shown in Graphs 8 and 9, there are some general characteristics in working trips. The proportion of working trips outside-zone is three times higher than inside-zone trips, for both men and women. This means that working trips are longer than trips for other purposes, which is logical because it is more difficult to find an appropriate job near to

3 Working trips include trips to/from work and trips during working time

home than a shop or school, for example. However, there is still a difference of 5% between genders: women work nearer home than men. The figure is similar to total trips but the difference is not all that apparent.

Graph 9 Working trip proportion in different destinations

Working trip proportion in different destinations 100%

80% 62% 57% 60%

40% 18% 17% 20% 21% 26% 0% Men Women

Inside zone Inside macrozone: O/D different zone O/D different macrozone

If we do the calculations again considering the working trips made amongst the entire population, we find a greater number of working trips among women than among men. It is necessary to bear in mind that 58% of workers are men. In other words, the percentage of working women is lower than men, as shown in Graph 10.

Graph 10 Inside- and outside-zone working trips per person among the total population

Inside and outside working trips/person among the total population

1.20 1.11

0.88 0.90 0.75

0.56 0.60

0.30 0.23 0.19

0.00 Inside zone Outside zone Total trips

Men Women

4 GENDER-BASED MODAL SPLIT

4.1 All-purpose trips

This chapter analyses the use of different transport modes by men and women.

4.1.1 Single-mode trips In single-mode trips, the private car is the main mode for men while walking is predominant in women's trips. This again proves that cars are more available for men. The difference in gender-based use of public transport is 5%, women more than men. In total, the use of sustainable means of transport accounts for 67% among women, while among men it only reaches 50% of total trips.

Graph 11 Transport mode usage in single-mode trips

Transport mode usage in single--mode trips 50% 47%

40% 40% 31% 30% 28% 27% 22% 20%

10% 4% 2% 0% Walking Public transport Car Others

Men Women

4.1.2 Multi-mode trips

The modal split changes a little when considering trips involving more stages. Public transport patronage increases 5% while car use and walking each drop 3 per cent. The difference between genders remains the same as before.

In trips comprising several stages, seamless transfer among modes is a key issue. Public transport in Madrid appears to be flexible enough to deliver “door to door” trips almost as cars do. Fostering a better transfer system among transport modes will produce a higher use of public transport.

Graph 12 Priority transport mode usage in total trips

Priority transport mode usage in total trips 50% 44%

40% 36% 33% 29% 27% 30% 25%

20%

10% 4% 2% 0% Walking Public transport Car Others

Men Women

4.1.3 Public transport trip distribution

A comparative analysis of the use of different modes of transport for all trips also reveals some gender-based differences. We have included the following modes in public transport in Madrid: suburban commuter rail, interurban bus, metro and urban bus. The use of commuter rail and metro for men is 5% higher than for women whereas the difference between genders in terms of urban bus patronage amounts to 8 per cent. In other words, women use buses more and men prefer rail modes.

Graph 13 Public transport patronage in total trips

Public transport patronage in total trips 60% 49% 50% 43%

40% 34%

30% 26%

20% 16% 14% 11% 10% 6%

0% Commuter raill Interurban bus Metro Urban bus

Men Women

The overall picture of use of all the different transport modes between men and women is represented in the following graphs.

Graph 14 Modal split of men’s total trips

Modal split in total trips (men)

Others 3%

Car Metro 47% Public 11% Urban bus transport 22% 6%

Walking 28% Interurban bus 3% Commuter rail 2%

Graph 15 Modal split of women’s total trips

Public transport modal split in total trips (women)

Others 2%

Car 31% Metro Public 12% Urban bus transport 27% 9% Walking 40% Interurban bus 4% Commuter rail 2%

4.2 Working trips

4.2.1 Single-mode working trips

When considering only working trips, there is a clear predominance of private car use in the case of men, even higher than in the case of all-purpose trips. Women, on the other hand, increase the number of car trips by 29% (9% more of the total) but, at the same time, they also increase their public transport trips by 48% (13% plus of the total). Both genders reduce walking trips in comparison with the distribution of all-purpose trips (see Graph 11). However, in the case of men, they are mostly transferred to cars, while in the case of women they are transferred first to PT and some to cars. Men use cars in 62% of their working trips and walk in only 11% of cases. Women show more sustainable mobility patterns with more than 58% of trips taken on foot plus PT. However, the relative use of car and public transport between men and women follows the same pattern as in general-purpose trips: men use cars 50% more than women in both cases.

Graph 16 Transport mode usage in single-mode working trips

Transport mode usage in single-mode working trips 70% 62% 60%

50% 40% 40% 40%

30% 23% 18% 20% 11% 10% 5% 1% 0% Walking Public transport Car Others

Men Women

4.2.2 Multi-mode trips

In multi-mode working trips, the use of public transport increases, meaning that multimodal trips are linked to PT modes. Women for their part already use more PT. We can say that women’s behaviour is more rational and less linked to the social image of car use. The lower use of cars in multi-mode trips indicates that park&ride facilities are neither sufficient, nor adequate for most of the trips.

Graph 17 Priority transport mode usage in working trips

Priority transport mode usage in working trips 60% 57%

49% 50%

40% 35% 29% 30%

20% 15% 10% 10% 5% 2% 0% Walking Public transport Car Others

Men Women

4.2.3 Public transport patronage

The relevant literature indicates that working trips tend to use transport modes that can guarantee trip time. This concurs with the Madrid Region findings where travellers use cars more and the metro where PT is concerned.

Graph 18 Public transport patronage in working trips

Public transport patronage in working trips 75%

58% 60% 50%

45% 31% 30% 22%

12% 15% 10% 9% 6%

0% Commuter rail Interurban bus Metro Urban bus

Men Women

The gender-based use of different public transport modes is compared in Graph 19. It confirms the general trend that women use the bus mode more while men use rail more. The main difference with all-trip mobility patterns is that the use of metro and urban bus increases a little.

Graph 19 Modal split distribution in working trips (men)

Modal split in working trips (men)

Others 5%

Metro 17% car Public 56% transport 29% Urban bus 6%

Walking Interurban bus Commuter rail 10% 3% 3%

Graph 20 Modal split distribution in working trips (women)

Modal split in working trips (women)

Others 2%

Metro 25% Car 34% Public transport 50% Urban bus Interurban 16% Walking bus 6% 14%

Commuter rail 3%

4.3 Comparison between total trips and working trips

The following mobility patterns for total trips and working ones have been drawn up by comparing the findings of Sections 4.1 and 4.2. z Men make 17% more working trips than women in Madrid (men 46% and women 29%). z Both in total trips and working trips, men make longer trips and tend to go outside macrozones. Women show the opposite behaviour. The gender-based difference decreases where working trips are concerned. z Women use public transport more. In single-mode trips, women use 13% more public transport for working trips (40%) compared with all-purpose trips (27%). In the case of men, there is very little change in their use. Another differential characteristic is that men use more rail modes (metro and commuter rail) and women prefer bus mode (urban and interurban). In multimodal trips, the genders display similar trip patterns. z Men use private cars a lot more than women. A total of 70% of men hold a car driving licence while only 54% of women do. On top of that, among driving licenceholders, 43% of men use cars against only 28% of women who do so. Car use is clearly linked to a male mobility pattern.

5 LOCATION AND WORKING TRIP CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter focuses on the differences between trips to/from work between women and men. We attempt to analyse why and where men tend to make longer trips to work and, secondly, why and where car use is associated to men’s mobility choices.

5.1 Trips inside macrozones

Considering only trips made inside macrozones (origin and destination in the same macrozone), we found the differences shown in Figures 2 and 3.

In general, the higher number of internal trips corresponds to the CBD and to the most peripheral zones in the Regional Ring. It is interesting to note that in the Madrid East Metropolitan Ring this percentage is higher than in the West and South. This corresponds to the higher number of jobs located in the eastern part of the Metropolitan Ring.

The A-6 corridor has the lowest rate of autodestination of working trips. This includes both the Metropolitan/Regional A-6 macrozones and the western districts of Madrid City. The reason for this is that it is an affluent area where fewer jobs are located and where high-class employees live and then go to work at the centrally-located offices of their companies.

Comparing men and women, we can see how the women's percentage of inner trips is higher than men in almost every macrozone. The differences between men and women are greater in some macrozones, for example in the Metropolitan and Regional A-6 corridors.

Distribution of men's working trips (inside macrozone) Distribution of women's working trips (inside macrozone)

Distribution of men's working trips (inside Distribution of women's working trips macrozone) (inside macrozone)

5.2 Private car use

It is easy to see from Figure 4 that men´s use of cars becomes higher and higher from Madrid Centre outwards to Ring III. In Ring II, it is higher in the Metropolitan A-1 corridor (N-1) and A-3 (N-III) corridors whereas the Regional M-607 (Colmenar) and A-VI corridors are lower than other macrozones in Ring III. This is probably linked to results in the previous section because these corridors have very good radial PT services and many residents travel to the CBD.

In the case of women, the use of cars is also higher in the suburban and regional macrozones. In Ring II, car use is lower in the Northwest. Moreover the Regional M-607 corridor (Colmenar) has quite a low use of cars when compared with other macrozones in Ring III.

Comparing men and women, we can once more see that men use cars a lot more in their trips to/from work than women do in almost every macrozone.

Private car use in macrozones (men) Private car use in macrozones (women)

Private car use in macrozones Private car use in macrozones (men) (women)

5.3 Working trip distance

Some characteristic patterns can be drawn from Figures 6 and 7. Regardless of gender, the average trip distance increases from Madrid Centre outwards to Ring III, which is only logical.

For men, average distance in the Northwest of Ring II is a little higher than the others. When considering women, only the distance involved in the Metropolitan A-1 corridor (N-1) is lower than in other parts. In Ring III, distances in the Regional A-3 corridor (N-III) are clearly lower than other macrozones for women. And for men, Regional A-1 (North) and A-3 (N-III) corridors are the lowest macrozones.

Average distance of working trips (men) Average distance of working trips (women)

6 ECONOMIC LEVEL AND CAR USE

Now let us have a look at the relationship between car use and average income. We did not consider Ring III macrozones here owing to the population sprawl and the few jobs in these zones. As a consequence, they have poorer PT provision making it normal for car use to be greater in these macrozones.

In the Metropolitan Ring, men’s car use is higher in two macrozones (Metropolitan A-1 and A-3 corridors). But average income is not high. This is not the case for women, in other words, car use by men bears little relationship to the average income in macrozones. But in the same ring, only in the high-income macrozones do women use cars more. In other words, it seems that the female behaviour is more logical, they use cars more when they have higher incomes. On the contrary, car use by men is more linked to location (distance), and then those living in the Metropolitan Ring tend to use cars independently of their economic level.

Car use in macrozones according to average income (men) Car use in macrozones according to average income (women)

Car use in macrozones according Car use in macrozones according

to average income (men) to average income (women)

7 MOBILITY PATTERNS AND NATIONALITY

7.1 Trip purpose

Finally, we have extracted some results concerning mobility patterns among the foreigners living in the Madrid Region. These findings are somewhat uncertain because the sample was not large enough in some cases and because the age and gender strata were different.

Notwithstanding, we can give some general findings. Firstly, foreigners do a lot more working trips than the EU-15 citizens and Spaniards. Secondly, they do more study trips than EU-15 citizens, at a level similar to Spaniards. Africans have the highest percentage of study trips and the lowest of working trips among non EU-15 citizens. Perhaps the unemployment rate amongst Africans is higher than among other national from other continents.

Graph 21 Distribution of trip purpose in each nationality group

Distribution of trip purpose in each nationality group 100% 15% 13% 21% 20% 16% 20% 80% 12% 9% 19% 11% 19% 20% 11% 60% 11% 27% 13% 19% 13% 40%

58% 52% 52% 44% 43% 20% 36% 40%

0% Spain EU-15- Other Latin Asia Africa Others(*) European America Countries Working trips Study Shopping Leisure Accompanying another person Others (*) including USA, Canada, Australia and Japan

7.2 Modal split differences by gender

The results show that Africans walk a lot. Latin Americans and Asians use public transport in more than half of their trips. Car use among third world citizens is clearly lower than in the case of Europeans. Eastern Europeans have similar mobility patterns to Western Europeans but they use cars less.

There are considerable differences between men and women. A striking finding is that men from other continents use cars about twice as often as women do. The women, on the other hand, do more trips walking and on Public Transport. It is clear that the social role associated with trip patterns is even more differential among these immigrants than in the case of Europeans. Women have relatively lower access to cars than men.

Graph 22 Priority transport mode use in each nationality group (men)

Priority transport mode use in each nationality group (men) 100% 13% 25% 22% 80% 37% 39% 45% 48%

60% 57% 33% 33% 46% 40% 26% 43% 34% 20% 41% 25% 28% 25% 30% 16% 18% 0% Spain EU-15- Other Latin Asia Africa Others(*) European America Countries Walking Public transport Car Others (*) including USA, Canada, Australia and Japan

Graph 23 Priority transport mode use in each nationality group (women)

Priority transport mode use in each nationality group (women) 100% 9% 11% 11% 14% 30% 80% 41% 41% 29% 60% 58% 55% 56% 32% 23% 40% 33% 57% 20% 37% 33% 33% 33% 36% 24% 0% Spain Europe -15 Other Latin Asia Africa Others(*) European America Countries Walking Public transport Car Others (*) including USA, Canada, Australia and Japan

8 GENERAL RESULTS

8.1 Conclusions

z Men hold a driving licence more than women do. Among licenceholders, men use private cars a lot more than women do. z Men and women show large differences in terms of trip purpose patterns. Men make 17% more working trips than women. At the same time, women make more trips for shopping purposes and for accompanying another person. z In total trips, men tend to make more trips outside a macrozone and women inside it. This happens in almost every macrozone, especially in Rings I and II. Specifically, men do longer trip distances. This is also the case with working trips, albeit involving fewer differences. z In single-mode trips in relation to total trips and working trips, men tend to use cars for most of their trips. Women use more public transport and walking. In working trips, the rate of car use is higher. There are few changes among men in the use of public transport both in all trips and working trips. z In multi-mode trips, public transport patronage attains 50% for women and 30% for men. In working trips, car use is higher, both for men and women, but still men use cars a lot more. z In public transport, men prefer rail modes and women bus modes. On the one hand, men use suburban commuter rail more because they do more trips outside a macrozone. On the other hand, they use less interurban buses, so we can assume that women prefer surface public transport modes. Underground modes do not give them a sense of security. Men value efficiency more while for women it is security that counts. z Regardless of traveller gender, the average distance for working trips increases from the Madrid Centre outwards to Ring III. Men’s trips are always longer than women’s. Some differences occur between macrozones in the same ring. z Car use for men bears little relationship to average income in macrozones, and women’s car use is influenced to some extent by economy. Ownership of more than one car in a single family is a possibility if the average income is high. In this case, private cars will be more readily available for use by women.

z Work and study are always the main purposes for trips for all non-European citizen groups. People from Other European Countries (non-EU), Latin America and Asia show the highest percentage of working trips in Madrid. Africans make study trips more than any other group, almost 30%. z Modal split findings show different mobility patterns according to each nationality group. Latin American, African and Asian nationals walk more and use cars less. The women of these nationalities use PT and walk more than men. Men from these origins use cars twice as much as women do.

8.2 Gender-based mobility drivers

According to the above analysis, a series of mobility drivers can be summarised for the two genders. z Location of employment Citizens' mobility patterns are directly affected by city configuration. People sprawl into suburban areas looking for better housing and more employment opportunities. This trend is especially evident for men. Women take other factors into consideration such as family and children. Consequently, land use and transport integration is very important for achieving sustainable transport and controlling mobility patterns. z Economic factors Men have easier access to private cars. This is barely influenced by average income. This is however not the case for women. Women are used to having a more sustainable travel choice: more walking and public transport trips. Only very high income women tend to use private cars more. z Social role of genders We are bound to admit that men and women play different roles in society. Women have to spend more trips on family-based errands like shopping, accompanying children and so on. Because of these commitments, they give up employment opportunities outside their macrozone and choose them near to their house. They use public transport and walking more. Men work further afield and use private cars for easier access to the workplace.