which cycling infrastructure do you prefer? - ecf.com · survey literature research &...

Which cycling infrastructure do you prefer? –A multidimensional typology of German cyclists

VeloCity Conference 2018Rio de Janeiro, 13/06/2018

“Friedrich List” Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences, Chair of Traffic Psychology

Angela Francke, Juliane Anke,

Lisa-Marie Schaefer, Sven Lißner

− Missing data about bicycle traffic

− Understanding obstacles for cyclists

− Use of web-applications and interpretation of GPS-data

− Prerequisite for further analyses

− Target group-oriented planning

Reasons for a cyclist typology?

VeloCity 2018 - Angela Francke 2

0

20

40

n.b. 0 1 2 4 7 8 10 12 14 15 26Num

ber

of

citie

s

Number of counting devices

Number of bicycle counting devices in your city

N=61

What types of cyclists are there?Objectives and procedure of the project

1

2

3 4

5Data preparation &

clustering

Preparation & implementation of a

survey

Literature research & development of a typologization approach

Analysis of differences and similarities

Implications for the cycling infrastructure 3VeloCity 2018 - Angela Francke

Publication Data collection

Categorization Place Types of cyclists

Steinecke & Hallerbach(1996)

None Travel purpose Germany (1) Everyday &(2) Leisure cyclists

Jones (2013) Biographical interview(N = 22)

Development over the life span

England (1) arrested(2) resilient(3) restorative

Leben (2016) Tracking-rides,naturalistic cycling, interview(N = 24)

Purpose oriented, Experience

Germany (1) calm(2) reasonable(3) Intuitive(4) ambitious

− Large differences in content and methods

− Different foci regarding criteria and categorization

− no empirical categorization, qualitative approach

Existing typologies - Qualitative

4VeloCity 2018 - Angela Francke

− typologies which have emerged from qualitative studies

− Usually one or two factors for categorization

Publication Data collection Categorization Place Types of cyclists

Bergström & Magnusson (2003)

Survey(N = 1,005)

Weather, motivation

Swe-den

(1) winter cyclist(2) summer-only cyclist(3) infrequent cyclist(4) never cyclist

Dill & McNeil (2012)

Survey(N = 902)

Infrastructuralpreferences, subjective security, comfort

USA (1) strong and fearless(2) enthused and confident(3) interested but concerned(4) no way no how

Larsen & El-Geneidy (2011)

Survey, GIS-data(N = 2,917)

infrastructure, cycling frequency

CAN (1) frequent cyclists(2) regular cyclists(3) occasional cyclists

Damant-Sirois et al (2014)

Survey(N = 2,004)

Infrastructure,weather, time efficiency, incentives, comfort, identification

CAN (1) dedicated cyclist(2) path-using cyclist(3) fairweather utilitarians(4) leisure cyclists

Existing typologies - Quantitative


Part

1 Current use

Reasons for non-use

Learning

Cycling break

Re-motivation

Part

2 Modal split, Choice of means of transport

Trip purpose

Environment & comfort

Temporal distance

Part distances covered

Offerings for cyclists

Rule violations

Motives

Accidents

Infrastructure

Part

3 Gender

Age

N. of persons in household

Bicycle ownership & type, club membership, child seat/trailer (bicycle)

Origin, Place of residence, Post code, Education, ...

Online survey in Germany - methodCyclist Profile Questionnaire (CPQ)Nov 2017 – Jan 2018


Sociodemographic characteristics

Definition Percent(n = 10,294)

Gender male 60,2

female 38,4

Age 10 – 29 23,6

30 – 49 47,5

50 – 69 27,2

70 + 1,7

Eductation Academic degree 61

Employment Employed 75,8

Driver‘s license yes 90,7

Online survey in Germany - sample

VeloCity 2018 - Angela Francke

Results - 4 types


Results – 4 types

9

•Motivation ↓

•Av. distance = 25 min

•Frequency of use is lowest (1-3 times/month).

•Subjective safety ↓

•Dependent on weather conditions.

•Lowest identification

•Motivation: Affectively & symbolically

•Av. distance = 44 min (longest)

•Subjective safety ↑

•↓ Influenced by weather conditions

•↑ identification

•Smallest group

•Motivation: Instrumentally


•Highest frequency of use

•Subjective safety ↓

•Highest identification

•The only ones which are showing a tendency to

violate traffic rules.

•Motivation: Instrumentally, symbolically & affectively(multi-motivated)

•Subjective safety ↑


•Frequency of use ↑

•Identification clearlyas cyclists

Passionate (n = 4241)

Pragmatic (n = 2168)

Functional (n = 2339)

Ambitious (n = 1546)


Infrastructural preferences

10

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

lowobstruction

by other roadusers

comfort speed safety fun

Mea

ns

characteristics of the bicycle traffic systems



Safety ratings on 5 point Likert scale (1: very bad – 5: very good)

11

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Passionate Pragmatic Functional Ambitious

Mixed traffic Cycle Protective strip Cycle path sidewalk /cycling Pedestrian zone path and sidewalk and sidewalk mixed-traffic



12

Speed ratings on 5 point Likert scale (1: very bad – 5: very good)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Mixed traffic Shared cycle Protective strip Cycle path sidewalk (cycling Pedestrian zone path and sidewalk and sidewalk allowed)/mixed-

traffic



regardless of the type of cyclist, 95-100% decide to use the bicycle traffic system

11 – 30 % would rather use the sidewalk

Proportion of cyclists cycling on pavements highest among all bicycle traffic facilities

Large differences among the types

Functional cyclists would rather cycle on the sidewalk

13

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%


Road

Sidewalk


− 9 Factors included in the typology

− 4 types: passionate, ambitious, pragmatic andfunctional

− Infrastructure types cycling lanes and segregated lane over all types best ratings

− highest potential for increasing number of cyclists among the group of functional cyclists

Conclusion


Contact:Udo Becker, Tibor Petzoldt, Angela Francke, Juliane Anke,

Sven Lißner

TU Dresden“Friedrich List” Faculty of Transport and Traffic

Sciences

Chair for transportation psychology, Chair for transportation ecology

01062 Dresden, Germany

E-Mail: [email protected]


Bergström, A., & Magnusson, R. (2003). Potential of transferring car trips to bicycle during winter. Transportation

Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(8), 649–666. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(03)00012-0

Damant-Sirois, G., Grimsrud, M., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2014). What’s your type: a multidimensional cyclist typology.

Transportation, 41(6), 1153–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9523-8

Dill, J., & McNeil, N. (2013). Four Types of Cyclists?: Examination of Typology for Better Understanding of Bicycling

Behavior and Potential. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387, 129–138.

https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-15

Jones, H. (2013). Understanding walking and cycling using a life course perspective. University of the West England.

Retrieved from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/22172/

Larsen, J., & El-Geneidy, A. (2011). A travel behavior analysis of urban cycling facilities in Montréal, Canada.

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.011

Leben, J. (2016). Rad Fahrende / wer sie sind und was sie brauchen (Vol. Band 7). Retrieved from http://d-

nb.info/1117714594/04

Münch, M. (2017). Eine multidimensionale Typologisierung von Radfahrern. Unpublished Master Thesis, TU Dresden.

Steinecke, A., & Hallerbach, B. (1996). Fahrradtourismus - ein Bericht zur Forschungslage und zu den

Forschungsdefiziten. In Fahrradtourismus – Baustein eines marktgerechten und umweltverträglichen Tourismus

(Vol. ETI-Texte, pp. 7–31). Trier.

References

17

which cycling infrastructure do you prefer? - ecf.com · survey literature research &...

Documents