PROJECT ADONIS - Final Summary Report

• 1. PARTNERSHIP
  
• 2. OBJECTIVES
  
• 3. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
  
• 4. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
  
• 5. RECOMMENDATIONS
  
• 6. COLLABORATION SOUGHT FOR EXPLOITATION
  
• 7. EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION
  
• 8. NAMES AND ADDRESSES

1. PARTNERSHIP

2. OBJECTIVES

1. to present a catalogue of best practices for promoting cycling and walking. Compare and contrast cycle/pedestrian-minded and non-minded cities.;
2. to provide new knowledge regarding behavioural factors affecting modal choice for short trips in urban traffic;
3. to increase cyclists’ and pedestrians’ safety through the identification of important human factors which may contribute to traffic accidents; and
4. to provide a comprehensive overview with general recommendations and guidelines to promote walking and cycling for urban decision makers within the EU.

Demonstration sites (case studies): Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen and Brussels. The latter site was not studied in II and III.

3. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

1. Specify a key to relevant measures, taking the actual situation and policy of the city for cycling and walking into account.
2. Identify users transport behaviour and important factors for modal choice in urban traffic based on interviews and survey data.
3. Conduct a series of interviews with accident involved persons.
4. Draw project-wide conclusions by integrating the results from the different tasks.

4. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Task 1 consisted of three different stages:

1.1) A review of technical and non-technical measures for cycling and walking was carried out looking at new and promising measures being introduced mainly in Amsterdam, Barcelona, Brussels and Copenhagen. The technical measures included facilities for moving along a section of the road, for crossing, waiting and resting. The non-technical measures comprised policy plans, education, information and public initiatives. From the various measures identified, a smaller group was selected using the following selection criteria:
a) comfort - is the solution attractive and does the solution make the trip shorter or faster?
b) does the measure stimulate walking or cycling?
c) is the measure cost effective? In addition to the above, each measure should also be safe (concerning both road safety and social safety) or at least be safer than the present solution.

1.2) Information about mobility policy, car ownership and street network were collected in 26 cities in four countries (Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Spain). This information was then compared with the actual shares of cycling and walking. The results showed that the shares of cycling and walking were not predicted by these variables although weak relationships were found between: Car ownership and car use ; and Cyclist policy and cyclist use.

1.3) Based on the results from stage 1) and 2) a catalogue of best practices was compiled to promote cycling and walking. The selected measures were described in as much detail as possible together with, where possible, a cost estimate. The catalogue is intended for local authorities, particularly for those who are responsible for the construction or improvement of traffic facilities, and for those who wish to influence the use of these facilities.

Public report: Best practice to promote cycling and walking.
Public CD-ROM: Best practice to promote cycling and walking.

Task 2 consisted of four different stages:

2.1) Preparation and formulation of surveys - a pilot study was conducted with the aim of collecting participants salient beliefs regarding walking, cycling and driving. A questionnaire was designed based on the pilot study and an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour including habit, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. In addition to this, a travel diary was prepared including all modes of transport.

2.2) Collection of data - a representative group of licence holders travelling regularly between 1-5 km was contacted by phone and asked to fill in a one day travel diary. A couple of days later the same respondents received a questionnaire in which they were asked to rate questions about an imaginary short journey by foot, bicycle or car.

2.3) Analysis of data - the predictive value of the theory was assessed together with cross-cultural differences

Results and conclusions: The results showed that habit contributed most to the prediction of walking, cycling and driving followed by perceived behavioural control, subjective norms and attitudes. The most important reason for walking in all three cities was distance, the acceptable length appeared to be around 1 km. In general, most people were very positive about walking. Greater discrepancy was found with regard to cycling. Participants from Barcelona, with little or no experience, of cycling were very negative about this mode. The most important factor, which prevented them from cycling was lack of safety. In contrast, participants from Amsterdam and Copenhagen were very positive and the committed cyclists would use it in most circumstances. The rate of driving in the three cities was fairly similar, The main factor which appeared to encourage the use of the car was comfort. Furthermore, the group labelled ”drivers” were also more likely than the ”walkers” and the ”cyclists” * to believe that driving was relaxing, that it increased their sense of freedom and that it would not be time consuming. It was also found that the ”drivers” did not to the same degree as the ”walkers” try to avoid spending money on transport and valued comfort as significantly more important than the ”cyclists”.

Public report:Behavioural factors affecting modal choice.

*”Drivers”, ”walkers” and ”cyclists” refer to people who only use this mode of transport on the day of survey. This factor correlated highly with both habit and intention

Task 3 consisted of three different stages:

3.1) Pilot interview - preparation and revision of an interview guide, completion of pilot interviews in Copenhagen. The pilot interviews were conducted with both parties involved in car-cyclist accidents and car-pedestrian accidents.

3.2) Interviews - accident involved people were asked about: what happened before, during and after the accident; how they as road users normally behaved; their experience of the different types of road layouts; and their own suggestions as to how accidents can be prevented. A total of 47 cyclists’ and 26 pedestrians’ accidents were studied.

3.3) Analysis and reporting - the interviews were transcribed and analysed.

Results and conclusions: The results showed that the road users who were interviewed had not after the accident reduced their cycling and walking although more than half of them felt less safe and had become more careful. In general, most of the road users admitted taking many risks even if this applied more to the car drivers than to the pedestrians and cyclists. Car drivers were considered to drive too fast, and not stop for other road users. Taxi drivers were considered a problem in all the cities.

Public report: A qualitative analysis of cyclist and pedestrian accident factors.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposals to encourage cycling and walking:

• Walking - Ensure that different amenities can easily be reached by foot; provide and maintain adequate lighting in public areas; improve home delivery services; introduce traffic calming in areas with mixed traffic; and increase the number of car-free areas.
• Cycling - Develop a road infrastructure which gives higher priority to cyclists; promote cycling as a convenient, efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transport; provide bicycles at places of work; provide city bicycles free of charge; introduce ”call-a-car ”schemes; introduce new types of cycle racks and storage’s; and introduce bicycle registration programs.

Proposals to discourage driving:

• Give higher priority to cycling and walking; increase the number of parking places for bicycles and decrease the number of parking places for cars; make people more aware of their own contribution towards the creation of a sustainable society; and use the media to increase the status of walking and cycling.

Proposals to increase cyclist and pedestrian safety:

• Parking restrictions - ban parking near cross-roads; enforce parking restriction on pavement
• Light signals - introduce green arrows for turning cars and separate cyclist signals; stop use of flashing lights.
• Cycle paths and cycle lanes - separation of road users through the use of specially painted bicycle lanes or bicycle lanes and carriage way at different levels.
• Speed controls - humps, chicanes and enforcement.
• Bus stop and trams - move bus stops to intersections with high visibility; introduce more rules for tramways.
• Facilities in intersections - light signals instead of ”give way lines”; recessed stop lines. Maintenance of road surface; smooth road surface.
• Conspicuousness - bicycle lamps and reflective items.

Facilities must be:

• cost effective;
• safe (both road safety and social safety) or at least be safer than the present solution;
• part of an integrated transport plan for cycling and walking.

Public report:How to substitute short car trips by cycling and walking.

6. COLLABORATION SOUGHT FOR EXPLOITATION

7. EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION

8. NAMES AND ADDRESSES

SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Atze Dijkstra, Peter Levelt
Phone: +31 70 320 9323, Fax: +31 70 320 1261, Email: atze.dijkstra@swov.nl

Ingeniería de Tráfico S.L., Jytte Thomsen, Ole Thorson
Phone: +34 93 301 3778, Fax: +34 93 301 1922, Email: set@caminos.recol.es

Langzaam Verkeer VZW, Jan Van Severen
Phone: +32 1623 9465, Fax: +32 1629 0210, Email: langzaam.verkeer@skynet.be

Technical University of Denmark, Department of Planning, Jan Grubb Laursen
Phone: +45 45 93 64 11, Fax: +45 45 93 64 12, Email: jgl@ivtb.dtu.dk

Re Behavioural factors affecting modal choice, contact one of the following:
Swedish National Road and Transport Institute, Sonja Forward
Phone: +46 13 20 40 00, Fax: +46 13 14 14 36, E-mail: sonja.forward@vti.se

Ingeniería de Tráfico S.L., Jytte Thomsen, Ole Thorson
Phone: +34 93 301 3778, Fax: +34 93 301 1922, E-mail: set@caminos.recol.es

Danish Road Directorate, Puk Kristine Nilsson
Phone: +45 33 93 33 38, Fax: +45 33 15 63 35, E-mail: puk@vd.dk

University of Groningen, Talib Rothengatter, Annet Brand
Phone: +31 50 363 6758, Fax: +31 50 363 6784, E-mail: info@ppsw.rug.nl

Re A qualitative analysis of cyclist and pedestrian accident factors, contact one of the following:
Danish Council of Road Safety Research, Inger Marie Bernhoft
Phone: +45 39 68 04 44, Fax: +45 39 65 73 62, E-mail: imb@rft.dk

Ingeniería de Tráfico S.L., Leif Thorson, Ole Thorson
Phone: +34 93 301 3778, Fax: +34 93 301 1922, E-mail: set@caminos.recol.es

University of Groningen, Talib Rothengatter, Annet Brand
Phone: +31 50 363 6780, Fax: +31 50 363 6784, E-mail: info@ppsw.rug.nl

Re How to substitute short car trips by cycling and walking, contact one of the following:
Danish Council of Road Safety Research, Inge Behrensdorff, Inger Marie Bernhoft
Phone: +45 39 68 04 44, Fax: +45 39 65 73 62, E-mail: imb@rft.dk

SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Atze Dijkstra
Phone: +31 70 320 9323, Fax: +31 70 320 1261, Email: atze.dijkstra@swov.nl

Ingeniería de Tráfico S.L., Jytte Thomsen, Ole Thorson
Phone: +34 93 301 3778, Fax: +34 93 301 1922, Email: set@caminos.recol.es

Swedish National Road and Transport Institute, Sonja Forward
Phone: +46 13 20 40 00, Fax: +46 13 14 14 36, E-mail: sonja.forward@vti.se

Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Transport – DG VII/E
Transport research help desk, Phone: + 32 2 295 43 00, Fax: +32 2 295 43 49