AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES

414 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
414
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES

  1. 1. AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES <ul><li>Presentation by: </li></ul><ul><li>MD NURUL HUDA </li></ul><ul><li>Supervisor: </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. John Parkin </li></ul><ul><li>Institute for Transport Studies </li></ul><ul><li>The University of Leeds </li></ul><ul><li>05 September 2005 </li></ul>
  2. 2. <ul><li>Minister for Local Transport says ( NCS, DfT 2005) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bicycle underrated, underused and declining in UK </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2% of all trips (Sweden 10%, Germany 11%, Switzerland 15%, Denmark 18%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But higher sales show strong interest in cycling </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2001 census (ITS 2005a) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cycling 2.89% of all modes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 13.6% of the users were regular cyclists </li></ul></ul>Level of cycle use
  3. 3. Why cycle? <ul><li>Problems </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing car use </li></ul><ul><li>Congestion </li></ul><ul><li>Pollution </li></ul><ul><li>Scarce road and parking space </li></ul><ul><li>Need for sustainable transport </li></ul><ul><li>Prospects </li></ul><ul><li>Cycling has a role in transport policy </li></ul><ul><li>Suits short trip </li></ul><ul><li>Good for door to door trip along with PT </li></ul><ul><li>Healthy & enjoyable </li></ul><ul><li>Economic & efficient </li></ul>
  4. 4. Problems to cycle <ul><li>Road hazard –traffic, road features </li></ul><ul><li>Bicycles are vulnerable </li></ul><ul><li>Cycling in junction is difficult </li></ul><ul><li>Taking right turns - more difficult </li></ul><ul><li>Motorists undermine cycles </li></ul><ul><li>Route facility sometimes discontinue where needs most </li></ul>
  5. 5. Aim and objectives <ul><li>Aim To quantify how people trade-off to avoid junctions by taking additional time along routes with and without cycle facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>To investigate how people feel approaching junctions </li></ul><ul><li>To determine the relative importance of features of junctions </li></ul><ul><li>To determine how cycle facilities compensate right turn risks at junctions at the cost of additional time </li></ul><ul><li>To identify the person type factors that adds this influence. </li></ul>
  6. 6.      Time   Risk  Traffic    Parkin (2004)  Abraham, McMillan, Brownlee & Hunt (2000)   Ortuzer, Iacobelli & Valeze (2000)  Wardman, Page, Tight & Sui (2000)    Sui, Wardman, Page & Tight (2000)  Wardman, Hatfield & Page (1997)   Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)  Bovy & Bradley (1985)   Waldman (1977) Person type Facility Hilliness Danger Previous works
  7. 7. Stated preference (1) <ul><li>Well suited to analyse cycle facilities on relatively small samples (Wardman et al. 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothetical scenarios offered to choose the best </li></ul><ul><li>Choice based SP: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ the easiest, quicker and more natural’ ( Ortúzar 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>widely accepted and used (Pearmain and Kroes 1991) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Utility function – linear </li></ul><ul><li>Components – deterministic & stochastic </li></ul><ul><li>Choice depends on deterministic component </li></ul><ul><li>Co-efficient based on residual variation </li></ul><ul><li>The higher the random error, the lower the co-efficient (Wardman et al. 2000) </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>Goodness of fit - rho-squared, 0.2~0.4 good fit </li></ul><ul><li>Robustness of coefficients </li></ul><ul><ul><li>statistical significance, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. T-ratio (= co-eff./standard error) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sign, values of the coefficients </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Outputs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>coefficient of estimates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>t -statistics and standard errors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Log-Likelihood measure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>rho squared </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>correlation matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assumptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>choice depends on limited factors, others constant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>relationship between factors and probability of choice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>functional form </li></ul></ul>Stated preference (2)
  9. 9. Methodology <ul><li>Data collection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Questionnaire interview – face to face </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aided by - choice cards, videos </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sample population - cyclists in the UK </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaire </li></ul><ul><ul><li>cycling habit - frequency and purpose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>choice exercises – difference design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>person types </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>comments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>testing questionnaire & refine </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Main survey </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis - database and use of software </li></ul>
  10. 10. Grouping of video clips Source: Parkin (2004) Note: Clips, numbers coloured, were used in the survey 39 Back street 6, 8, 10 , 28, 31, 32, 36, 37 No cycle facility 19, 20, 49, 50 , 51, 54 Cycle lane 31 Priority 6, 19, 32, 36, 51 Straight on 18 Bus lane 6, 8 , 19, 20 Signalised junction 8, 20, 31, 37 , 50 Right turn 38 Res. street 32, 36, 37 , 50 , 51 Roundabout Clips Types Clips Types Clips Types Turns Facilities Junctions
  11. 11. Attributes and levels (1) <ul><ul><li>Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Base time - 15 minutes, cycle time to work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Wardman et al, 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional 10 minutes - for variation in trips </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Three levels: 18, 21 and 25 minutes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 0 15-18 = - 3 minutes difference </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1 15-21 = - 6 minutes difference </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2 15-25 = -10 minutes difference </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>Route facility </li></ul><ul><li>Part of the trip may take enhanced route facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities considered: </li></ul><ul><li>– bus lane, cycle lane, residential street </li></ul><ul><li>– these cover half the trip </li></ul><ul><li>Three levels: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 0 50% No facility + 50% bus lane </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1 50% No facility + 50% cycle lane </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2 50% No facility + 50% residential street </li></ul></ul></ul>Attributes and levels (2)
  13. 13. <ul><li>Junctions </li></ul><ul><li>Additional penalty for negotiating junctions </li></ul><ul><li>Worse with crossing conflicts and right turn </li></ul><ul><li>Three levels – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 0 No right turn </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1 Right turn at signals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2 Right turn at roundabout </li></ul></ul></ul>Attributes and levels (3)
  14. 14. <ul><li>Option 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Time-15 min </li></ul><ul><li>Turn-No right turn </li></ul><ul><li>Right turn signal </li></ul><ul><li>Right turn RA </li></ul><ul><li>Facility- Absent </li></ul><ul><li>Option 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Time-18/21/25 min </li></ul><ul><li>Turn- Absent </li></ul><ul><li>Facility- Bus lane </li></ul><ul><li>Cycle lane </li></ul><ul><li>Residential street </li></ul>Organisation of choice
  15. 15. Respondents at a glance <ul><li>Total respondents = 37 ( all can cycle) </li></ul><ul><li>Do not cycle = 02 </li></ul><ul><li>Female = 06 </li></ul><ul><li>Young (17~ 34 yrs) = 22 (av. age=26.4 yrs) </li></ul><ul><li>Old (45~65 yrs) = 08 (av. age=53.4 yrs) </li></ul><ul><li>Regular cyclist = 29 (>1~2 times/wk ) </li></ul><ul><li>Commuters = 28 </li></ul><ul><li>No car owner = 23 </li></ul><ul><li>Urban = 22 </li></ul>
  16. 16. Comments by the respondents (1) <ul><li>Cycle lanes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not always suitable, fine if suits speed & direction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dangerous - car drivers do not pay attention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ASL important and dangerous without it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More clearly defined space, sufficiently wider </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bus lanes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fine, if no buses around </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cyclists get squeezed, hence dangerous </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buses tend to get off and push </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Often avoid residential streets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fear of mugging, esp. in evening times </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sometimes traffic undisciplined </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>Roundabout and signalised junctions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Roundabouts are dangerous, often difficult </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mini roundabout fine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Signalised junction okay </li></ul></ul><ul><li>General points </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Longer routes are worth taking to avoid junctions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negotiate junctions like motorists keeping eye contact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More signals required at junctions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Heavier traffic on routes in practical than shown in videos </li></ul></ul>Comments by the respondents (2)
  18. 18. Model results (p/1) Contd. (T-ratio in brackets) -0.7059 (-2.5) - -0.7235 (-2.6) - -0.6968 (-2.6) - Bus Lane (DBL) - -0.06715 (-2.5) - -0.0686 (-2.5) - -0.06617 (-2.5) Time + Bus Lane (TIBL) -0.7713 (-7.6) -0.7519 (-7.5) -0.7612 (-7.6) -0.741 (-7.4) -0.7315 (-7.5) -0.7121 (-7.4) Time + no Facility ( TIRNF) 3.886 (7.3) 3.803 (7.1) 3.744 (7.1) 3.659 (6.9) 3.376 (7.3) 3.294 (7.1) Constant 0.2051 0.2047 0.1937 0.1931 0.1677 0.1671 Rho-sq (C) -178.7253 -178.8208 -181.2982 -181.432 -187.143 -187.2676 LL (F) 331 331 331 331 331 331 Observations Facility Time Facility Time Facility Time Multipl. model Additive model Base model Items
  19. 19. Model results (p/2) Note: 1. RTS – Right turn at signal (T-ratio in brackets) 1.369 (2.5) 1.369 (2.5) NCO*RTS -1.378 (-2.4) -1.384 (-2.5) YOUNG*RTS 1 -0.6833 (-3.8) -0.6848 (-3.8) -0.8862 (-3.1) -0.8846 (-3.1) No car owner cyclists (NCO) 0.8689 (2.5) 0.8753 (2.5) - - YOUNG - - 0.5351 (2.0) 0.5341 (2.0) Urban cyclists (URB) Facility Time Facility Time Facility Time Multi. model Additive model Base model Item
  20. 20. Rho squared Constant in models Model results (p/3) 18.74 0.2051 0.2524 17.23 0.2047 0.2473 Multiplicative 8.76 0.1937 0.2123 9.17 0.1931 0.2126 Additive 4.28 0.1677 0.1752 4.79 0.1671 0.1755 Base Drop (%) Final Initial Drop (%) Final Initial Facility Time Models -2.17 3.886 3.972 -1.58 3.803 3.864 Multiplicative 5.17 3.744 3.56 7.97 3.659 3.389 Additive 1.63 3.376 3.322 4.34 3.294 3.157 Base Pick up (%) final initial Pick up (%) final initial Facility Time Models
  21. 21. Conclusion <ul><li>Time on no facility road, time on bus lane, bus lane itself and ‘no car owners’ are statistically significant </li></ul><ul><li>Urban and young and are found significant in additive and multiplicative models respectively </li></ul><ul><li>Urban people are used to cycle junctions </li></ul><ul><li>Young people accept to cycle, but do not like to ride signalised junctions </li></ul><ul><li>NCO love not to cycle, they find signalised junctions better </li></ul><ul><li>Right turns and cycle facility have no significance, may be due to individual preferences in the sample </li></ul>
  22. 22. Limitations <ul><li>Some interviewee had to remind to opt based on clips </li></ul><ul><li>Few of them looked for clues to respondent </li></ul><ul><li>Some experience more traffic than in videos </li></ul><ul><li>Some chose facilities, although they would not prefer while cycling </li></ul><ul><li>Number of respondents would be more if some cyclists (esp. female) did not avoid </li></ul><ul><li>Much earlier contact to interviewees was necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Time consuming, overall survey time was much longer </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of balance between sex, age and cycling habit </li></ul>
  23. 23. Recommendations <ul><li>Further studies to include priority, T and staggered junctions; also lane facilities at junctions </li></ul><ul><li>To investigate why the constant picks up on expansion of models </li></ul><ul><li>To balance between sexes and age, also between occasional and regular cyclists </li></ul>
  24. 24. Thank you!!

×