Bicycle Route Choice Data an overview of methodological approaches - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

bicycle route choice data an overview of methodological
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Bicycle Route Choice Data an overview of methodological approaches - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Bicycle Route Choice Data an overview of methodological approaches Ray Pritchard 14th September 2015 Cycling & Society Symposium, Manchester Why is route choice important? Assist cycling promotion Existing data static


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Bicycle Route Choice Data – an overview of methodological approaches

Ray Pritchard

14th September 2015 Cycling & Society Symposium, Manchester

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Why is route choice important?

  • Assist cycling promotion
  • Existing data – static
  • Network impacts
  • Preferences of users:
  • Built environment
  • Aesthetics
  • Topography
  • Ease of navigability

The$car$era$that$was$–$and$in$ some$areas,$s2ll$is.$

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Not all route choice studies are created equal

  • Hypothetical route choice (how would you…)
  • Amongst real options
  • Amongst not yet implemented options (preference)
  • Actual route choice (observe/how did you…)
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Literature Review (19)

Publica(on+ Year+ Authors+ Data+Region+ Technique+ 1978$ Lo:$and$Tardiff$ USA$?$Davis$ Stated$preference$interview$?$door$to$door$to$persons$in$region$prior$to$bike$lane$installa2on.$N:$254$ before,$110$aMer.$ 1984$ Bovy$and$Bradley$ NL?$DelM$ Stated$preference$survey.$N:$unknown$ 1986$ Axhausen$and$Smith$India$?$Mumbai$ Stated$preference$survey.$N:$unknown$ 1997$ Aultman?Hall$ Canada$?$Guelph$ Paper?based$Surveys$distributed$via$mail,$in$person$and$in$bicycle$shops.$Guelph$Community$Bicycle$Survey$ and$Guelph$Bicycle$User$Survey.$N:$397$ 1998$ Aultman?Hall$ Canada$?$O:awa$ &$Toronto$ Paper?based$Surveys.$Mail?back$ques2onnaire$a:ached$to$parked$bicycles.$N:2964$ 2005$ Raford$ UK$?$London$ Self?reported$revealed$preference$routes.$'Business$cycle'$project$of$employees$in$central$London.$N:423$ 2007$ Eisenman$ USA$?$Hanover$ Sensor$equipped$bicycle.$Demonstra2on$of$concept.$N:$5$bicycles$equipped.$ 2008$ Harvey$ USA$?$ Minneapolis$ Data$collected$from$GPS$receivers$and$Stated$preference$survey$in$addi2on,$compares$cyclists’$preferred$ routes$with$the$shortest?network$paths.$N:$49$ 2008$ Dill$ USA$?$Portland$ GPS$?$mounted$to$bicycle,$used$for$7$days.$Par2cipants$through$newspaper,$bike$shops$and$random$phone$ calls.$N:$164$ 2010$ Menghini$ Switzerland$?$ Zurich$ GPS$?$data$collected$by$private$company$analysing$billboard$exposure.$N:2435$(people$in$original$survey).$ N:$3387$stages$(taken$by$bike).$No$demographic$data$available.$$ 2011$ Larsen$ Canada$?$ Montreal$ Online$survey$?$travel$behaviour$analysis.$N:$2917$ 2011$ Hood$ USA$?$San$ Francisco$ Smartphone$GPS$receiver$and$applica2on$Cycle$Tracks.$Promoted$principally$through$bicycle$coali2ons$and$ university$networks,$but$also$media$outlets$and$local$events.$N:$952$ 2012$ Gavin$ Ireland$?$Dublin$ Mobile$applica2on$Rothaim$Dublin$(three$week$tes2ng$period$w$volunteers)$?$tracks$and$plans$routes$?$ programming$aspects$detailed.$N:$63$ 2012$ Hudson$ USA$?$Aus2n$ San$Francisco$CycleTracks$Applica2on$?$home/work$postcode?$(self$register).$N:$317$ 2013$ Snizek$ Denmark$?$ Copenhagen$ Online$ques2onnaire/survey$asking$cyclists$to$map$posi2ve$and$nega2ve$experiences$on$their$most$recent$ bicycle$route$taken.$N:$398$ 2013$ Van$Duppen$ NL$?$Utrecht$ GPS$traced$and$video$recorded$ride?alongs.$N:15$ 2014$ Nitsche$ Austria$?$Vienna$ Self?classifica2on$of$trip$taken,$the$data$collec2on$takes$accelerometer,$cell$and$gps$data$to$classify$routes.$ N:$15$trial$volunteers.$ 2014$ Halldórsdólr$ Denmark$?$ Copenhagen$ GPS$volunteers$?$bicycle$route$choice$model.$Travel$diaries$from$select$par2cipants.$Data$collected$for$all$ modes$of$transport$and$post$processed.$Exact$details$for$data$collec2on$procedure$unclear.$N:139.$$ 2015$ Yeboah$ UK$?$Newcastle$ GPS$volunteers$?$bicycle$route$choice$model.$Travel$diary$and$GPS$for$1$week.$N:$79$commuter$cyclists.$$

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Data Capture Techniques (19)

  • Interview (1)
  • Ride-along interview (1)
  • Paper-based survey (5)
  • Online survey (2)
  • Purpose-configured GPS unit (5)
  • Smartphone (4)
  • Sensor configured bicycle (1)
slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Interview

N: 254 before, 110 after. (Lott, Tardiff and Lott, 1978)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Ride-along (+ GPS + Video)

N:15. (Van Duppen, Spierings, 2013)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Paper Travel Surveys

  • Travel diaries
  • Relies on good participant understanding of maps
  • Recall vs actual

Digitised hand drawn cycle routes in Guelph, n: 397 (Aultman-Hall 1997)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Online Travel Surveys

  • High response rate possible: n ~ 3000 (Larsen, 2011)
  • Respondents can contribute opinions/suggestions

398 online surveys – Copenhagen (Snizek et al. 2013)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Purpose Configured GPS

  • Often connected to PDA – allows user input (travel diary)
  • Bohte & Maat (2007) – self classifying journeys
slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

(Kasemsuppakorn$&$Karimi$2013).$

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Smartphone application

(Hudson$et$al.$2012)$

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

  • Modal classification based on accelerometer, GPS, cell

network data

  • 95% accuracy for identifying cycling

(Nitsche et al. 2013)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Sensor-configured bicycle

(Eisenman$et$al.$2007)$

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Norwegian context

  • Development
  • n the ground
  • Big ambition!

8,0 by 2023

$$$2017 2020 2023

8,0 by 2015

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

  • Office relocation. n: 114
  • Bicycle: 10% (before) – 27% (expected after)
  • Bus: 8% (before) – 37% (expected after)
  • Parking fees and localisation (12km from CBD to 1km

from CBD)

Perceived$ Cycling$ Safety$

My research:

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Coming...

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Where next?

  • People who do not cycle much – what would make them

cycle more?

  • What about the non-commute trips
  • Network impacts of built environment changes (esp.

Unique bicycle infrastructure)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Raymond.Pritchard@ntnu.no