1

AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPESDIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES

Presentation by:Presentation by:

MD NURUL HUDAMD NURUL HUDA

Supervisor:Supervisor:

Dr. John ParkinDr. John Parkin

Institute for Transport StudiesInstitute for Transport StudiesThe University of LeedsThe University of Leeds

05 September 200505 September 2005

2

Minister for Local Transport says (NCS, DfT 2005)NCS, DfT 2005)

Bicycle underrated, underused and declining in UK

2% of all trips (Sweden 10%, Germany 11%, Switzerland 15%, Denmark 18%)

But higher sales show strong interest in cycling

2001 census (ITS 2005a)

Cycling 2.89% of all modes Only 13.6% of the users were regular

cyclists

Level of cycle useLevel of cycle use

3

Why cycle?Why cycle?

Problems Increasing car use Congestion Pollution Scarce road and

parking space Need for sustainable

transport

Prospects Cycling has a role in

transport policy Suits short trip Good for door to door trip

along with PT Healthy & enjoyable Economic & efficient

4

Problems to cycleProblems to cycle

Road hazard –traffic, road features Bicycles are vulnerable Cycling in junction is difficult Taking right turns - more difficult Motorists undermine cycles Route facility sometimes discontinue where needs

most

5

Aim and objectives Aim

To quantify how people trade-off to avoid junctions by taking additional time along routes with and without cycle facilities

Objectives To investigate how people feel approaching junctions To determine the relative importance of features of

junctions To determine how cycle facilities compensate right turn

risks at junctions at the cost of additional time To identify the person type factors that adds this influence.

6

Previous works

Danger Risk Traffic Hilliness Facility Person type

Time

Waldman (1977)

Bovy & Bradley (1985)

Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)

Wardman, Hatfield & Page (1997)

Sui, Wardman, Page & Tight (2000)

Wardman, Page, Tight & Sui (2000)

Ortuzer, Iacobelli & Valeze (2000)

Abraham, McMillan, Brownlee & Hunt (2000)

Parkin (2004)

7

Stated preference Stated preference (1)(1)

Well suited to analyse cycle facilities on relatively small samples (Wardman et al. 1997)

Hypothetical scenarios offered to choose the best Choice based SP:

‘the easiest, quicker and more natural’ (Ortúzar 2000) widely accepted and used (Pearmain and Kroes 1991)

Utility function – linear Components – deterministic & stochastic Choice depends on deterministic component Co-efficient based on residual variation The higher the random error, the lower the co-efficient

(Wardman et al. 2000)

8

Goodness of fit - rho-squared, 0.2~0.4 good fit Robustness of coefficients

statistical significance, i.e. T-ratio (= co-eff./standard error) sign, values of the coefficients

Outputs: coefficient of estimates t-statistics and standard errors Log-Likelihood measure rho squared correlation matrix

Assumptions choice depends on limited factors, others constant relationship between factors and probability of choice functional form

Stated preferenceStated preference (2)(2)

9

MethodologyMethodology

Data collection Questionnaire interview – face to face Aided by - choice cards, videos

Sample population - cyclists in the UK Questionnaire

cycling habit - frequency and purpose choice exercises – difference design person typescomments testing questionnaire & refine

Main survey Analysis - database and use of software

10

Grouping of video clipsGrouping of video clips

JunctionsJunctions FacilitiesFacilities TurnsTurns

TypesTypes ClipsClips TypesTypes ClipsClips TypesTypes ClipsClips

RoundaboutRoundabout32, 36, 37,

50, 51Res. streetRes. street 38 Right turnRight turn

8, 20, 31, 37, 50

Signalised Signalised junctionjunction

6, 8, 19, 20 Bus laneBus lane 18 Straight onStraight on6, 19, 32, 36,

51

PriorityPriority 31 Cycle laneCycle lane19, 20, 49, 50,

51, 54

No cycle No cycle facilityfacility

6, 8, 10, 28, 31, 32, 36, 37

Back streetBack street 39

Source: Parkin (2004)Note: Clips, numbers coloured, were used in the survey

11

Attributes and levels (1)

Time Base time - 15 minutes, cycle time to work

(Wardman et al, 2000)

Additional 10 minutes - for variation in trips Three levels: 18, 21 and 25 minutes

Level 0 15-18 = - 3 minutes differenceLevel 1 15-21 = - 6 minutes differenceLevel 2 15-25 = -10 minutes difference

12

Route facility Part of the trip may take enhanced route facilities Facilities considered:

– bus lane, cycle lane, residential street

– these cover half the trip Three levels:

Level 0 50% No facility + 50% bus lane

Level 1 50% No facility + 50% cycle lane

Level 2 50% No facility + 50% residential street

Attributes and levels (2)

13

Junctions Additional penalty for negotiating junctions Worse with crossing conflicts and right turn Three levels –

Level 0 No right turn Level 1 Right turn at signals Level 2 Right turn at roundabout

Attributes and levels (3)

14

Organisation of choiceOrganisation of choice

Option 1 Time-15 min Turn-No right turn Right turn

signal Right turn RA Facility- Absent

Option 2 Time-18/21/25 min Turn- Absent Facility- Bus lane Cycle lane Residential

street

15

Respondents at a glanceRespondents at a glance Total respondentsTotal respondents = 37 (= 37 (all can cycle)all can cycle) Do not cycleDo not cycle = 02= 02 FemaleFemale = 06= 06 Young (17~ 34 yrs)Young (17~ 34 yrs) = 22 (av. age=26.4 = 22 (av. age=26.4

yrs)yrs) Old (45~65 yrs)Old (45~65 yrs) = 08 (av. = 08 (av.

age=53.4 yrs)age=53.4 yrs) Regular cyclistRegular cyclist = 29 (>1~2 times/wk= 29 (>1~2 times/wk)) CommutersCommuters = 28= 28 No car ownerNo car owner = 23= 23 Urban Urban = 22= 22

16

Comments by the respondents Comments by the respondents (1)(1)

Cycle lanes Not always suitable, fine if suits speed & direction Dangerous - car drivers do not pay attention ASL important and dangerous without it More clearly defined space, sufficiently wider

Bus lanes Fine, if no buses around Cyclists get squeezed, hence dangerous Buses tend to get off and push

Often avoid residential streets Fear of mugging, esp. in evening times Sometimes traffic undisciplined

17

Roundabout and signalised junctions Roundabouts are dangerous, often difficult Mini roundabout fine Signalised junction okay

General points Longer routes are worth taking to avoid

junctions Negotiate junctions like motorists keeping eye

contact More signals required at junctions Heavier traffic on routes in practical than shown

in videos

Comments by the respondents Comments by the respondents (2)(2)

18

ItemsItemsBase model Additive model Multipl. model

Time Facility Time Facility Time Facility

Observations 331 331 331 331 331 331

LL (F) -187.2676 -187.143 -181.432 -181.2982 -178.8208 -178.7253

Rho-sq (C) 0.1671 0.1677 0.1931 0.1937 0.2047 0.2051

Constant3.294(7.1)

3.376(7.3)

3.659(6.9)

3.744(7.1)

3.803(7.1)

3.886(7.3)

Time + no Facility (TIRNF)

-0.7121(-7.4)

-0.7315(-7.5)

-0.741(-7.4)

-0.7612(-7.6)

-0.7519(-7.5)

-0.7713(-7.6)

Time + Bus Lane (TIBL)

-0.06617(-2.5)

--0.0686

(-2.5)-

-0.06715(-2.5)

-

Bus Lane(DBL)

--0.6968

(-2.6)-

-0.7235(-2.6)

--0.7059

(-2.5)

Model results Model results (p/1)(p/1)

Contd.

(T-ratio in brackets)

19

ItemItemBase model Additive model Multi. model

Time Facility Time Facility Time Facility

Urban cyclists (URB)

0.5341(2.0)

0.5351(2.0)

- -

YOUNG - -0.8753

(2.5)0.8689

(2.5)

No car owner cyclists (NCO)

-0.8846(-3.1)

-0.8862(-3.1)

-0.6848(-3.8)

-0.6833(-3.8)

YOUNG*RTS1 -1.384(-2.5)

-1.378(-2.4)

NCO*RTS1.369(2.5)

1.369(2.5)

Model results Model results (p/2)(p/2)

Note: 1. RTS – Right turn at signal

(T-ratio in brackets)

20

Rho squaredRho squared

ModelsTime Facility

Initial Final Drop (%) Initial Final Drop (%)

Base 0.1755 0.1671 4.79 0.1752 0.1677 4.28

Additive 0.2126 0.1931 9.17 0.2123 0.1937 8.76

Multiplicative 0.2473 0.2047 17.23 0.2524 0.2051 18.74

ModelsTime Facility

initial final Pick up (%) initial final Pick up (%)

Base 3.157 3.294 4.34 3.322 3.376 1.63

Additive 3.389 3.659 7.97 3.56 3.744 5.17

Multiplicative 3.864 3.803 -1.58 3.972 3.886 -2.17

Constant in models Constant in models

Model resultsModel results (p/3)(p/3)

21

ConclusionConclusion Time on no facility road, time on bus lane, bus lane Time on no facility road, time on bus lane, bus lane

itself and ‘no car owners’ are statistically significantitself and ‘no car owners’ are statistically significant Urban and young and are found significant in additive Urban and young and are found significant in additive

and multiplicative models respectivelyand multiplicative models respectively Urban people are used to cycle junctionsUrban people are used to cycle junctions Young people accept to cycle, but do not like to ride Young people accept to cycle, but do not like to ride

signalised junctionssignalised junctions NCO love not to cycle, they find signalised junctions NCO love not to cycle, they find signalised junctions

betterbetter Right turns and cycle facility have no significance, Right turns and cycle facility have no significance,

may be due to individual preferences in the sample may be due to individual preferences in the sample

22

LimitationsLimitations Some interviewee had to remind to opt based on clips Few of them looked for clues to respondent Some experience more traffic than in videos Some chose facilities, although they would not prefer while

cycling Number of respondents would be more if some cyclists (esp.

female) did not avoid Much earlier contact to interviewees was necessary Time consuming, overall survey time was much longer Lack of balance between sex, age and cycling habit

23

RecommendationsRecommendations

Further studies to include priority, T and staggered junctions; also lane facilities at junctions

To investigate why the constant picks up on expansion of models

To balance between sexes and age, also between occasional and regular cyclists

24

Thank you!!