## 4 Results
### Mobility Habits
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Transport Mode** & **Bologna** & **Rome** & **Trento** & **Turin** \\ \hline foot/bike (exclusive) & 4.3\% & 1.0\% & 4.3\% & 5.5\% \\ \hline public transport/train (exclusive) & 17.3\% & 15.3\% & 8.3\% & 23.8\% \\ \hline car (exclusive) & 41.6\% & 50.0\% & 62.7\% & 36.9\% \\ \hline
2-wheeler (exclusive) & 2.5\% & 4.4\% & 0.2\% & 0.9\% \\ \hline foot/bike \& public transport/train (in combination) & 5.8\% & 2.2\% & 5.7\% & 5.5\% \\ \hline public transport/train \& car (in combination) & 16.9\% & 15.5\% & 12.4\% & 16.8\% \\ \hline foot/bike \& public transport/train \& car & 5.7\% & 2.9\% & 4.0\% & 4.3\% \\ (in combination) & & & & & \\ \hline foot/bike \& car (in combination) & 1.3\% & 0.2\% & 1.4\% & 4.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Transport modes in the four cities. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Distance**} \\ \hline
**Modes** & **0–9** & **10–19** & **20–39** & **40–69** & **70–99** & **100–149** & **150–199** & **>200** \\ \hline foot/bike (exclusive) & 3.5\% & 0.4\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% \\ \hline public tr./train (exclusive) & 4.5\% & 4.1\% & 2.7\% & 2.4\% & 1.3\% & 0.9\% & 0.3\% & 0.6\% \\ \hline foot/bike \& public tr./train (in combination) & 1.1\% & 0.9\% & 0.6\% & 0.9\% & 0.4\% & 0.6\% & 0.2\% & 0.4\% \\ \hline foot/bike \& public tr./train \& car/2-wheeler & 1.2\% & 2.1\% & 4.1\% & 4.3\% & 3.4\% & 2.5\% & 1.5\% & 1.0\% \\ (in combination) & & & & & & & \\ \hline car/2-wheeler (exclusive) & 6.4\% & 10.0\% & 12.9\% & 11.4\% & 4.6\% & 2.3\% & 0.7\% & 0.5\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Transport modes and distances - total values for the four cities (Detailed data for the four cities are listed in the Additional Material). Almost half of the workers interviewed declare that their travels are exclusively by private means of transport (47% by car and 2% by two-wheeler), while 17% travel exclusively by public transport (including rail transport) and 16% travel by a public/private mix. The exclusive use of soft mobility (walking or cycling) is a much less frequent option (4%), which increases in mixed mode with public or private transport (11%). Significant differences in the use of private means of transport in an exclusive form (car and two-wheeler) between workers in Trento (62.9%) and Rome (54.4%) can be seen (Tables 1 and 2). For the former, the high use of private transport is to the detriment of public transport, for the latter to the detriment of soft mobility. Although public transport, with foot/bike, is relatively more used in Turin (29.3%), it is much less so in Trento (14%). Figure 3: Daily commuting time of workers from the survey in the four cities. Figure 2: Daily commuting distance of workers from the survey in the four cities. Looking at the data, relations can be observed between distance and choice of homework mode of travel (Table 3; the data for each city are shown in tables in the additional material). The most sustainable modes are used most at shorter distances. For distances of less than 20 km, 56.6% of the respondents use a combination of soft mobility and public transport, compared to 25.6% in the range 20-70 km, 6.5% in the range 70-100 km, and 11.4% for longer distances. The mixed public/private mode is more frequent to travel longer distances (41.9% in the range 20-70 km, 16.8% in 70-100 km, and 24.8% for more than 100 km). Finally, the tendency to use only car or two-wheeler is greater for respondents who make a daily trip between 20 and 70 km (49.9%); however, even for trips of less than 20 km the use of the latter is significant (33.6%). Three patterns of choice seem to emerge: sustainable modes for short distances, with a presumable incidence of urban and metropolitan bus and tram lines; intermodal for long distances, with a presumable incidence of the train; the car for distances neither too long nor too short.