Erfurt, 12.-13. April 2012 - WordPress.com · 2012. 7. 6. · Survey Implementation Characteristics...

www.bicy.it

Erfurt, 12.-13. April 2012

www.bicy.it

Jason Meggs, Joerg Schweizer - Velo-City Global, Vancouver; June 27, 2012This project implemented via the Central Europe Programme co-financed by ERDF

www.bicy.it

OVERALL GOAL: Increase & improve cycling in Central Europe

Scope: Seven countries, 16 areas (14 cities), 3 years

Diverse Strategy:

Media, Resources, Events, Trainings;

Pilot Project Investments, Strategies;

Engaging political process, creating

dialogue & understanding;

Data Gathering & Scientific Analysis

» Policy Making


www.bicy.it

The analysis consists of three primary components:

• SWOT analysis

(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats);

• Detailed Mobility Street Survey

• Indicators, consisting of official data and their relationships,

correlated with observed cycling levels

Outputs include:

• Key findings include modal share and cycling index

• Cyclists’ and Public Transport users’ experiences

• Future modal change by scenarios


www.bicy.it

Our top findings


www.bicy.it

More bikeways = MORE CYCLING

Based on official indicator data, and modal split from survey.


www.bicy.it

The message is clear:

Building more bikeways is required for

creating more cycling.

No matter the

causality,

to ignore

bikeways is

a HUGE

mistake.


www.bicy.it

Goal of low-cost, easily replicable method

Detailed mobility survey

(Mode share and more from quick one-page,

survey, 4-6 min. w/guide. Many cities need this!)

SWOT based on BYPAD

(Gets stakeholders talking, a key step)

Spatial GIS analysis with OpenStreetMap

(Free global geographic data in constant

development by hundreds of contributors)


www.bicy.it

Survey Implementation Characteristics

Cost per survey < 2 euros

• Including gadgets and shirts (35%)

• Can be done by volunteers

Time to record approx 4.5 minutes

Minimum 48 hours field presence, 3 staff

Target of 1500 surveys for > 1000 usable

• Ensure 2%precision


www.bicy.it

Survey can be replicated many places

Benefit of consistent method

(Allows unified approach, more reliable

comparisons and scientific findings)

Low-cost and quick

(Even volunteers can conduct this, if they are

committed to following the methodology)


www.bicy.it

Corrections required…

A survey must be representative of the population.

An extensive effort was made to adjust the survey where necessary.

Weighting assumed that the demographics of the traveling public

are proportional to population demographics.

The age groups are important (young, adult, older).

Female to Male ratio is important.

How many surveys: more makes it better.

Where were they asked, and who was asked?

And what do we know about how many drivers, cyclists, etc.


www.bicy.it

Bias minimized, directed against cycling

Detailed methodology manual to prevent bias

Coverage Errors

Nonresponse Errors

Measurement Errors

Question wording errors

Question ordering errors

Interviewer Effect Errors

Incentivization Errors

Failed Reporting of Location/Time

Assumptions and Algorithms


www.bicy.it

Sometimes there was a big difference

Not enough seniors.


www.bicy.it

Another example, one step closer..

Not enough

minors.


www.bicy.it

Female to male ratio was relatively good..


www.bicy.it

Components of Survey:Residence Block

Customised to city.


www.bicy.it

Components of Survey:Travel Type Block


www.bicy.it

Components of Survey:General Mobility Block

Components of Survey:General Mobility Block


www.bicy.it

Components of Survey:Future Transport Block

Option to customise based on nature of inquiry.


www.bicy.it

Components of Survey:Personal Demographics Block

Not asked, simply recorded by survey administrator as perceived.

Note economic status ignored (cyclists are generally economically diverse,

question would be intrusive, but lose a dimension).


www.bicy.it

Survey Modal Split


www.bicy.it


www.bicy.it

Comparing survey cycling with official

This is a big

difference!

Only Partner Places with both survey and official data are shown.


www.bicy.it

Confidence of preliminary results?


www.bicy.it


www.bicy.it

So, who were these cyclists?

Typology by frequency & potential:

• Regular cyclists

• All cyclists

• Potential Regular cyclists


www.bicy.it

What is a regular cyclist?

Regular cyclists are the share of cyclists who use the

bicycle regularly for any reason, or who use it sometimes

for a regular purpose (work or shopping).

Different from modal split – here we are counting bicyclists,

not bicycling.

Modal split typically only uses an individual's largest trip.


www.bicy.it

Regular cyclists:

Higher than modal split

because we are looking

at travelers, not trips


www.bicy.it

What are our cyclists’ experiences?

Safety?

Weather?

Hills?

Bike theft?

Good bike routes?


www.bicy.it


www.bicy.it

Do we cycle in the cold and rain?


www.bicy.it

Yes, we can cycle in cold and rain..

Photo of a cyclist, by a cyclist. Bologna , Italy: blizzard, winter 2012. Photo by Jason Meggs.

www.bicy.it

Do we cycle with hills?


Is cycling of hills cultural, like cycling in the rain? San Francisco has a booming culture of cycling despite steep hills. “Despite its

hilly terrain, San Francisco has the fourth highest share of commuters who bike to work among major U.S. cities”.

Photo by Frank Chan, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. (Page 100, Alliance for Walking & Cycling 2012 Benchmarking Report.)

www.bicy.it

Yes, but we cycle less with hills..


www.bicy.itPut another way, cycling climbs a hill..


www.bicy.it

Can we find parking?


www.bicy.it

Do we find a good daily bicycle route?


www.bicy.it

Potential Cyclists


www.bicy.it

What is a Potential Regular Cyclist?

Potential Regular Cyclists are those people who

don’t ride regularly, but COULD ride because their

regular trip distance is small enough.

(All walkers are potential regular cyclists.)


www.bicy.it

Based on distance to work and not refusing the cycle.


www.bicy.it

Predictions


www.bicy.it

Predicting Future Cycling:

Survey Scenarios(Stated Preferences)

Modeled Relationships


www.bicy.it

Survey preferences:

Admittedly predicting behavior based on respondents' beliefs is unreliable.

However, potential is likely under-reported for any who have not

experienced a cycling culture and city.


www.bicy.it

Survey scenarios: Based on what respondents say would get them cycling regularly

Scenario 1

Cycle ways / traffic limitations, ALL regular travel path;

Secure bicycle parking at all destinations

Scenario 2

All of the above, and:

Cycle hire facilities at all destinations

Scenario3

All of the above, and:

Bike path with sun, wind and rain protection


www.bicy.it

Increased Cycling, per Scenario


www.bicy.it

Predictions by Indicator Relationships

More bikeways, more

bikers.


www.bicy.it

LARGER CITIES: a stronger relationship

(Cities defined as population >= 100K)


www.bicy.it

TOWNS: also stronger, different slope

(Towns defined as population < 100K)


More „bang for the buck“ in larger cities but still cost-effective for towns.

www.bicy.it

Projected Benefits

Carbon Reductions

Health Economic Benefits

Local economic benefits

And many more to be explored!


www.bicy.it

Carbon reductions, three scenarios


www.bicy.it

Health Economic BenefitsFoundational Data Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs

Population 233880 39426 37995 79038 51354 33175 28272

Bikeways km 7.2 1.5 5.7 2 6.3 5 4.4

Cycling Index (Raw) 3.0785E-05 3.8046E-05 0.00015002 2.53043E-05 0.000122678 0.000150716 0.000155631

Fit Line Slope (city & town) 254.6 158 158 254.6 158 158 158

Marked Bikeway €84,000 €66,000 €60,000 €91,000 €13,000 €13,000 €140,000

Physical Bikeway €200,000 €150,000 €224,000 €400,000 €137,500 €120,000 €160,000

Share Adult Workers 64.30% 64.50% 55.10% 62.70% 42.30% 50.10% 75.80%

Population Adult Workers 150385 25430 20935 49557 21723 16621 21430

Share Biker and Worker 4.00% 5.70% 4.60% 7.30% 10.60% 17.90% 5.50%

Share Regular Bike-Work 2.30% 3.40% 2.70% 3.00% 2.10% 3.30% 1.90%

Pop. Reg. Bike Workers 5379 1340 1026 2371 1078 1095 537

Note: assumptions were made for Prague, Koper and Budaörs to correct/provide their cost data

Note: only adult workers and cyclists (age 17-59) are counted here; work includes commuting to study (school)

Target 15% Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs

Target Cycling Index (Raw) 0.000529607 0.000772223 0.000928501 0.000496632 0.000939134 0.000891222 0.000984745

Target Total Bikeway km 123.9 30.4 35.3 39.3 48.2 29.6 27.8

New km needed 116.7 28.9 29.6 37.3 41.9 24.6 23.4

Cost, Marked Bikeways €9,799,811 €1,910,414 €1,774,703 €3,390,004 €545,067 €319,362 €3,281,699

Cost, Physical Bikeways €23,332,883 €4,341,851 €6,625,558 €14,901,115 €5,765,137 €2,947,956 €3,750,513

Middle cost (half each) €16,566,347 €3,126,132 €4,200,131 €9,145,560 €3,155,102 €1,633,659 €3,516,106

Formula: x2 = (y2-y1 + B*x1)/B where x1 is initial Cycling Index, x2 is target CI, y1 is initial cycling %, B is slope, y2 is target = 15%

Note: all these calculations assume that marked and physically separated bikeways have the same effect on cycling levels

HEAT (Target 15%) Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs

Current Bike Commuters 5379 1340 1026 2371 1078 1095 537

Future Bike Commuters 35082 5914 5699 11856 7703 4976 4241

Average Cycling/Day (hours) 0.801 1.003 0.73 0.488 0.564 0.841 0.365

Average Cycling (minutes) 48.06 60.18 43.8 29.28 33.84 50.46 21.9

Time to Max Uptake 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Mortality Rate (country) 420.56 420.56 420.56 365.35 298.67 298.67 365.35

Local Value of Statistical Life €1,574,000 €1,574,000 €1,574,000 €1,574,000 €1,574,000 €1,574,000 €1,574,000

Time period for benefits 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Discount Rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Average Annual Benefit €35,387,000 €6,421,000 €5,185,000 €6,591,000 €4,247,000 €3,406,000 €2,002,000

8-yr Total Benefit€283,092,000 €51,366,000 €41,481,000 €52,730,000 33,974,000 €27,247,000 €16,017,000

Max annual benefit (yr 11) €81,583,000 €14,803,000 €11,954,000 €15,196,000 €9,791,000 7,852,000 €4,616,000

Current Value, 8-yr avg Benefit €4,759,000 €3,843,000 €4,885,000 3,147,000 2,524,000 €1,484,000

Total 8-yr savings (current val)€209,808,000 €38,069,000 €30,743,000 €39,080,000 €25,179,000 €20,193,000 €11,871,000

Benefit-Cost Ratio 9.91:1 12.18:1 7.32:1 4.27:1 7.98:1 12.36:1 3.38:1

Indicator & Survey

Data

Target Bikeways

for 15% Cycling

Health Economic

Benefits of

Lives Saved Using WHO Europe's HEAT tool,

http://heatwalkingcycling.org/


www.bicy.it

Bikeways for 15% target already

VERY cost effective!


www.bicy.it

This was a very conservative scenario:

Only regular commuters, ages 17-59 years

Assumed 5 years to build bikeways!

(we can do better!)

Only counted benefits for 8 years

(for 2020, based on Charter of Brussels -

yet maximum benefits reached in year 11)

Only for economic value of life (“all cause

mortality”) – ignoring MANY other benefits:

health, social, economic, environmental, etc.,


www.bicy.it

Bikeways for 30% target even better!


www.bicy.it

Other findings: effects of investmentsWhat’s the right balance: PT, Cycling and Walking?


Very important for modeling future scenarios , e.g., GHG emissions as well.

www.bicy.it

Dream Goals:OpenSource code

freely available

• Survey Analysis

• OSM processing

Online Tool produces BICY

report

•Automatically, any city

•Influence policy, real

results

Method replicated

widely, helps fill

bicycle data vacuum


www.bicy.it

Publications

Unified, Low-Cost Analysis Framework for the Cycling Situation in Cities. Joerg Schweizer, Jason N. Meggs, Nazanin R. Dehkordi, Frederico Rupi, Anton Pashkevich. International Journal

of Civil and Environmental Engineering 6 2012. http://www.waset.org/journals/ijcee/v6/v6-56.pdf

An Analysis Framework to Assess Automobile, Public Transport and bicycle usage

between West and East Europe: A Comparative Survey. Joerg Schweizer, Jason N. Meggs,

Nazanin R. Dehkordi, Federico Rupi, Anton Pashkevich

Can PRT overcome the conflicts between public transport and cycling?J. Meggs, F. Rupi, J. Schweizer

Results of the BICY project: modeling cycling response to infrastructure

investments. Joerg Schweizer, Jason N. Meggs, Nazanin R. Dehkordi, Federico Rupi, Anton Pashkevich .

Cycling Research International, Vol 2 (2012), (forthcoming).

Bicycle City or Transit City? Effects and Limits of Sustainable Transport Investment

Choices. Meggs, J, Schweizer, J (forthcoming)

Cost-Benefit Analyses of Prospective New Bikeways in Central Europe: Applications

of the BICY Methodology. Meggs, J, Schweizer, J (forthcoming)


www.bicy.it

Our reports will

be online!


www.bicy.it

CONCLUSION:

Build it and they will come.


www.bicy.it

CONFERENCE FINALE:

Prague, January 17, 2013

CULTURE CHANGE:

INCREASING CYCLING IN CENTRAL EUROPE


www.bicy.it

Current Focus: TRANSNATIONAL

STRATEGY

THANK YOU!Questions welcome, now and in the future:

Jason N. Meggs (presenting), Joerg Schweizer

DICAM – Transport Engineering Group

University of Bologna

[email protected] joerg [email protected]

+39 051 207 3338 (office)

+39 333 1565 787 (mobile)

skype: jasonmeggs joerg.schweizer.distart


Erfurt, 12.-13. April 2012 - WordPress.com · 2012. 7. 6. · Survey Implementation Characteristics...

Documents

Transcript of Erfurt, 12.-13. April 2012 - WordPress.com · 2012. 7. 6. · Survey Implementation Characteristics...