Aalborg Universitet Bike Infrastructures Report Silva, Victor ... - VBN

not using the bicycle was reported. The reasons were
classified into six categories: no opportunity for using a
bike (for instance no bicycle was available, distance is too
long); practical matters that hamper bicycle use (e.g. luggage
transport) or force to use an alternative mode (e.g.
one should have the car available at the destination);
(perception of) travel time; (perception of) insufficient
infrastructure and traffic situation; (perception of) inconvenience
and insecurity of cycling; and personal preferences
regarding use of the bicycle or other modes. There
is a remaining seventh category consisting of non-bicycle
trips with no hindrance for bicycle use.
Table 4.11 shows the magnitude of the different hindrances
in the before and after periods, starting from the most
objective hindrances and going to the most subjective
ones. The latest category shown is the category without
any hindrance, indicated as ‘freedom of choice’. Two
kinds of hindrances are distinguished: general hindrances
that always are valid for a certain trip (for instance the distance
is too large) and incidental hindrances that are valid
only on the enquiry day (e.g. unlike on other days, the
traveller was accompanied by grandmother who doesn’t
cycle any more).
Practical matters and travel time are the most important
reasons for not using a bicycle. The magnitude of both
hindrances decreased slightly between the before and after
periods. A larger decrease is observed for each of the
other hindrances. Especially infrastructure and traffic exhibit
a relatively large decrease. This is not surprising because
the bicycle plan aims predominantly to improve the
infrastructural and traffic situation. However, in the before
situation, this hindrance was marginal. Looking at Table
4.11, other kinds of measures might be more efficient for
increasing bicycle use.
The large increase of the freedom of choice category for
non-bicycle trips is mainly valid for trips where walking
or car is the actual mode. For walking trips, the general
freedom to choose the bicycle increased from 14% of all
walking trips to 32%, for car trips the increase was from
13% to 34%. A much smaller increase was observed for
trips by public transport: from 29% to 36%.
In addition to the freedom to choose the bike when actually
another mode is used, there can be a freedom to
choose another mode when actually the bicycle is used.
Where the former are relevant for the potential for bicycle
use, the latter indicate the vulnerability of bicycle use.
Table 4.12 shows the hindrances for walking, car use,
or public transport patronage for trips that actually are
made by bicycle. The presented figures are the general
hindrances; figures about the actual hindrances on the
enquiry day (that have a lower freedom of choice) are not
available. Divergent from Table 4.11, the accumulative
impact of the hindrances on the bicycle trips that remain
free of choice is displayed. In 1982, for 3% of the bicycle
trips walking is no option, leaving 97% free of choice.
Next, practical matters generate hindrances for a part of
the remaining bicycle trips, which part equals 11% of all
bicycle trips. Then 86% is still free of choice. After skinning
the trips for all hindrances in this way, 17% remain
where no hindrance is applicable in general (but might still
be applicable on the enquiry day).
hindrance
before
after
general incidental total general incidental total
bicycle no option 12.1% 1.6% 13.7% 6.7% 1.1% 7.7%
practical matters 35.6% 10.6% 46.2% 23.8% 21.2% 44.9%
travel time 45.4% 5.2% 50.6% 34.4% 9.4% 43.8%
infrastructure and 0.8% - 0.8% - 0.3% 0.3%
traffic
inconvenience, 16.8% 4.8% 21.6% 7.9% 5.2% 13.0%
insecurity
personal preferences 17.4% - 17.4% 12.3% - 12.3%
freedom of choice 15.7% - 3.0% 33% - 7%
Table 4.11: Hindrances for bicycle use in percents of non-bicycle trips.
hindrance
walk car public transport
1982 1985 1982 1985 1982 1985
all bicycle trips 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
mode no option -3% -0% -44% -42% -24% -13%
practical matters -11% -15% -5% -12% -2% -4%
travel time -49% -42% -8% -8% -23% -31%
infrastructure and traffic -0% -0% -2% -1% -3% -2%
inconvenience,
-3% -2% -4% -6% -17% -21%
insecurity
personal preferences -17% -11% -11% -4% -21% -13%
freedom of choice 17% 30% 25% 27% 10% 16%
Table 4.12: Accumulative impact of general hindrances for other modes in percents of bicycle trips
The main hindrance for walking is travel time; the main
hindrance for car use is the unavailability of a car. For
using public transport there are a number of larger hindrances:
mode availability, travel time, inconvenience,
and personal preferences. The freedom to shift from the
bicycle to walking or public transport increased substantially.
The (initially large) freedom to shift to the car is
nearly unaffected.
Figure 4.5 gives an overview of the potentials for shifting
between bicycle, walk, car and transit in 1985. The
modal percentages are percents of all trips made by the
mode; the numbers in the arrows between the modes are
percentages of all trips. For instance, 34% of car trips are
vulnerable for shifting to the bicycle; this number is equal
to 10% of all trips. The other way around, 27% of the bicycle
trips are vulnerable for shifting to the car; these equal
11% of all trips. Again, the figures represent the general
freedom of choice, not the freedom of choice on the enquiry
day.
Next examined question is which modal shifts really took
place as a result of the bicycle network improvements.
The panel participants were asked about their modal use
in both the before and after situations to activities that they
continued to visit in the two periods. The distinguished
activities were work, school, shopping, service, leisure.
About 20% of the activities performed in 1982 were not
continued in 1985 by the same respondents. These 20%
are left out of the analysis.
Figure 4.5: General intermodal potentials in 1985
(source: Katteler et al, 1987)
40 41