Porto, Sept. 3, 2026 (Lusa) - The difficulties associated with using a car in Porto, such as traffic and finding a parking space, are encouraging the intermodal use of public transport, according to a scientific article written by researchers from the Faculty of Engineering.
«One of the motivations for intermodality [the use of more than one mode of transport for daily journeys] that we observed [relates to] the disadvantages of the car. We have a group of intermodal users here who realise that the difficulties in using a car to get into the municipality of Porto – in terms of congestion and a lack of parking – lead them to opt for intermodal travel,» one of the researchers, João Teixeira, told Lusa.
This trend towards intermodality and the use of public transport is evident «even though there is no public policy to restrict car use», as, «currently, in Portugal this is not the case; specifically, in the municipality of Porto there are no policies that directly restrict car use», says João Teixeira, pointing out that «the perceived inconveniences of using a car in Porto can act as an informal incentive for intermodal solutions, even in the absence of explicit policy intervention» in this regard.
The article in question is "Intermodal versus monomodal travellers: evidence from a comparative study in Porto», published in June and also authored by Miguel Lopes and António Couto, from the Centre for Research on Territory, Transport and the Environment (CITTA) at the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, involving 3,446 validated responses in a survey conducted in 2024.
The article distinguishes between monomodal users (who use only one mode of transport for their daily journeys) and multimodal users (who use more than one), noting that «intermodality is closely associated with the use of public transport, in contrast to monomodality, which is much more closely associated with the car».
Regarding the reasons for using public transport, the most frequently cited among intermodal travellers are the availability of direct connections (38%), followed by price/cost (32%); these percentages are lower among monomodal users (22% and 26%, respectively), with «more pronounced differences» also noted between the two groups in factors relating to service and context.
Thus, intermodal travellers «attach much greater importance to high service frequency (34% versus 14% [among monomodal users], speed (30% versus 15%), environmental concerns (20% versus 7%) and avoiding traffic (18% versus 7%)», according to the study, in which figures relating to parking difficulties also stand at around 19% for intermodal users compared with 12% for monomodal users.
This evidence leads researchers to believe that «if there were a more assertive policy to restrict car use, it is likely that current car users would seek alternatives», namely «using the car to reach the outskirts of the city and then making the rest of the journey by more sustainable modes, notably public transport».
Among intermodal users, there are those who have no alternative, who, according to João Teixeira, are «people on lower incomes, with lower levels of education, and who are particularly reliant on the bus», perceiving this service «as poor», and «people who do have access to a car but nevertheless see advantages in being intermodal».
«The users we refer to as ‘captive' are far more dependent on the bus, whilst those who have a choice make much greater use of rail, particularly the metro and trains,» Teixeira also told Lusa, a trend exacerbated by the «competitive advantages that the bus currently fails to offer in terms, for example, of reliability, frequency and competitiveness in terms of journey times», as «they are often stuck in traffic jams» and «do not run to schedule, arrive late, and there are cancellations».
JE/AYLS // AYLS
Lusa
