This document presents an investigation into cyclists' preferences for different types of junctions in the UK, highlighting the decline in cycling trips despite a growing interest in cycling. The study aims to quantify how cyclists trade off additional time to avoid junctions with and without cycling facilities, while considering various factors that influence their choices. Results indicate significant preferences related to time on different facilities and demographic differences, necessitating further research to enhance cycling safety and encourage greater usage.

1. AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES Presentation by: MD NURUL HUDA Supervisor: Dr. John Parkin Institute for Transport Studies The University of Leeds 05 September 2005

2. Minister for Local Transport says ( 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 use

3. 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 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.      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. Stated preference (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 preference (2)

9. Methodology 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 types comments testing questionnaire & refine Main survey Analysis - database and use of software

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. 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 difference Level 1 15-21 = - 6 minutes difference Level 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. 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 Organisation of choice

15. Respondents at a glance Total respondents = 37 ( all can cycle) Do not cycle = 02 Female = 06 Young (17~ 34 yrs) = 22 (av. age=26.4 yrs) Old (45~65 yrs) = 08 (av. age=53.4 yrs) Regular cyclist = 29 (>1~2 times/wk ) Commuters = 28 No car owner = 23 Urban = 22

16. Comments by the respondents (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 (2)

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. 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. 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. Conclusion Time on no facility road, time on bus lane, bus lane itself and ‘no car owners’ are statistically significant Urban and young and are found significant in additive and multiplicative models respectively Urban people are used to cycle junctions Young people accept to cycle, but do not like to ride signalised junctions NCO love not to cycle, they find signalised junctions better Right turns and cycle facility have no significance, may be due to individual preferences in the sample

22. Limitations 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. Recommendations 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!!