WHY PEOPLE DO OR DO NOT USE THEIR BIKE ON SHORT TRIPS MODALITY CHOICES IN THE NETHERLANDS

Transcription

1 WHY PEOPLE DO OR DO NOT USE THEIR BIKE ON SHORT TRIPS MODALITY CHOICES IN THE NETHERLANDS Mireille van Twuijver Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management; Transport Research Center (AVV), The Netherlands Madelon Schreuders Goudappel Coffeng, The Netherlands 1. INTRODUCTION While the overall mobility is rising in the Netherlands, car use is increasing to a greater extent than the use of public transport and biking. In 2002 the percentage of car trips increased from 44% to 49%. Although we see within the category up to 7,5 kilometers (i.e. 2,08 miles) a somewhat smaller share of car trips, for these short trips the car is gaining ground. For the accessibility of cities, the quality of living conditions in living areas, traffic safety, the environment and the health of road users, these short car trips form a major problem in the Dutch community. Over the last decade, the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management has developed different policies to deal with the increasing pressure short car trips (i.e. up to 2,08 miles) form to our society. This Dutch Ministry has launched a specific governmental program, called mobility management, through which the Ministry tries to motivate, instead of force, people to make good mode choices that are respectfull for both individual needs as well as for the society as a whole. The mobility management policy is focused on shifting the responsibilities for the implementation of policy measures from central to regional and local policy makers. Those measures include, for example, presenting attractive alternatives for individual car use. For short trips this means reducing the number of car trips by promoting biking: the goal is to get more people, more often on their bike! 1.1 Current research To gain insight into how people can be best stimulated to travel by bike more often, the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management asked the Transport Research Center (AVV) and Goudappel Coffeng to conduct a study among Dutch citizens. Main goal to be achieved in this study was to learn from the arguments people use when they decide to use their bike, and from the arguments they use when they decide to travel by car on short trips up to 7,5 kilometer (i.e. 2,08 miles). On the one hand, it was expected that the results would provide us with a better understanding of the perceived impediments for biking to be dealt with by policy makers. On the other hand the study was set out to provide better insight into the positive arguments that make people so-called satisfied bikers. Also, this type of insight can be helpful for policy makers in persuading other citizens. Because we expected

2 the arguments to differ between situations and destinations, we gave attention not only to the arguments themselves, but also to argumentation processes. The main question is: why does someone use his or her bike for a certain trip when the next week he or she makes the exact same trip but then uses the car? What kind of argumentation takes place? What are the most important pros and cons that are considered in this particular situation? During this study we cooperated closely with local policy makers because they would be the final users of the results of the study. 2. LITERATURE ON MODALITY CHANGES On modality choice in general there is a rich choice in literature available. We found the following major determinants of mode choice: Habitual behavior To a large extent mode choices on short trips are influenced by habits: although it is not necessary to take the car, the car is available and will therefore be used. These kinds of habits are usually hard to change. Habits are the result of frequent and consistent behavior; they can best be changed shock wise, so to speak, when long term decisions are made. A good moment to try to change other peoples travel habits could be when one has a new job or moves to another area in the country. These meaningful situations in life could pertain to long term mobility changes. On the other hand, short term changes in mobility choices (for example as a result of a positive experience with public transport) are not expected to last long (Veling, 1994). Attitudes and perceptions Literature shows a positive relation between attitudes and mode choices: a positive attitude towards travelling by train, results in increased travel by train. However, attitudes and perceptions are also hard to change: although a bike is in some situations the quickest travelling mode as a result of congestion, one-way traffic et cetera, people persist to perceive bikes as a slow vehicle. They deny all information that could refute their perception of bikes, just because they are not interested enough in bikes: bikes are not in their evokod set. This is of great interest, because giving the right information is clearly not enough to change peoples attitudes. People select the information they use in their decision making process (Wierenga & Van Raaij, 1987). Motivations In general there are three types of motivations that are at the basis of mode choices: - instrumental motives ( my car brings me from A to B in a fast, flexible and comfortable way ); - affective-emotional motives ( driving in my car gives me the feeling of freedom and privacy ; when I drive my car, I have control over the situation ); - and motives based on social comparison ( most of my colleagues travel by train to work, I should do that too ) (Slotegraaf et al, 1997).

3 Availability There is a close relation between modality choice and availability: having a bus stop in front of the residence, for example, increases the chances of travelling by bus. Also, having a railway station nearby increases the chance of using the bike to travel to that station instead of using the car. And when people live in the vicinity of an ongoing road the number of car trips is also increased. Biking increases when shops are available in the neighborhood. (Connekt, 1999). Household composition Also the composition of the household is of influence on mode choices. Households consisting of one or two persons prefer travelling by car more often. Also in households with little children, parents tend to use their car more often when bringing their children to school; mostly due to reasons of (perceived) traffic unsafety and time pressure (Mackett & Robertson, 2000). In the literature we also found the influence of the following factors on modality choice: demographic factors (living in urban or rural areas); demand and supply factors (parking possibilities, car ownership, supply of alternatives); personal factors (gender, age et cetera); indirect personal factors (ownership of driver s license, place of residence, working location et cetera); travel motives (i.e. commuter traffic, recreational traffic et cetera); and situational factors (weather conditions, perceived social safety). 2.1 Implications On the basis of the literature review, we concluded that, when studying mode choices, it is important to differentiate between groups with different household compositions and life styles. With respect to mode choices, those groups (i.e. students, households with little children, dinky s (double income, no kids) et cetera) have different transport patterns, transport options, attitudes and habits. We also concluded that it is important to pay attention to the differences in transport patterns between rural and urban areas and the degree of municipality. 3. THE RESEARCH PROJECT 3.1 Research goal and design The goal of the research was, with respect to short trips up to 7,5 kilometer (i.e. 2,08 miles), to gain insight into the argumentation processes with respect to mode choices from a situational point of view. The main question is: why do people at one point use their bike and decide to use their car for the exact same trip the next time? The second purpose was to determine how (groups of) people can be influenced in such a way that they increase their bike use. This focuses on the question: which concrete measures can be developed for the local policy makers with respect to increased bike use that correspond with their argumentation processes?

4 Although biking as well as public transport can form an alternative for car use on short trips, we focus in this paper on arguments and argumentation processes with respect to car use and biking. The research questions were addressed as follows: we started with a literature review and a workshop with local and national policy makers, researchers and representatives of different community groups. In this workshop we came to an inventory of expectations and wishes of these groups with respect to the study. Secondly, we used several qualitative research methods: individual interviews, group discussions and family interviews. In total we spoke with 61 persons. Thirdly, we conducted a survey among 1021 persons. We finalized the study conducting a second workshop with policy makers and several community groups. In this workshop we presented the results of the study and elaborated on several implications for national and local policy makers. 3.2 Sample On the basis of the qualitative part of the study, in which the sample represented a wide variety of background variables and travel purposes, we found that choices between car and bike use were influenced by 3 factors: 1. the place of residence (Western (industrialized) part of the Netherlands vs. the rest of the country); 2. the degree of municipality of the place of residence; 3. the household composition: having children under or over the age of 12. We stratified the sample of the quantitative phase of our project along these three factors. Because we studied modality choices between car and bike, we assured that only respondents with disposal of both a car and a bike were included in the sample. 3.3 Results The qualitative part of the study revealed various arguments and argumentation processes people use for biking or car use on short trips, which seemed to differ somewhat between different travel purposes. On the basis of the arguments found in the qualitative part of the study, combined with some arguments for modality choices we found in the literature, we developed a questionnaire to be used in the quantitative part of the study. In this questionnaire, we focused on five reasons for travelling: commuter traffic; sports and recreation; shopping; frequenting café s, theatre or cinema; and bringing children to school and to other activities. For each of these reasons for travelling, we asked the respondents questions about the choices they usually make between biking and car use (table 1). For example, in the case of shopping, these choices were: 1. When you choose the car instead of the bike, when you make a short trip for reasons of shopping, the arguments for this choice are.. ; 2. When you choose the bike instead of the car, when you make a short trip for reasons of shopping, the arguments for this choice are:.. In both cases a list of pre-coded arguments was offered in terms of propositions; the respondents were asked to indicate to which extent they did agree or disagree with these propositions.

5 Choices Bike instead of car Car instead of bike Shopping Bringing children to school Reasons for traveling Sports and recreation Frequenting café s, cinema etc Commuter Traffic Arguments: for which reasons do you prefer the bike over the car? Arguments: for which reasons do you prefer the car over the bike? Table 1: design of the questionnaire In this paper we will report on the major results of the quantitative study. Travel patters on short trips The respondents were asked to indicate how often they use the car and the bike on short trips in general. The results in table 1 show that on short trips the car and the bike compete in terms of frequency (table 2). Frequency of use Car % Bike % Several times per day Once a day 9 6 Several times per week Several times per month Seldom/never Totaal 100 (n=1021) 100 (n=955) Table 2: user frequencies (%) of car and bike on short trips in the Netherlands The questions concerning the choices between car and bike revealed that for each of the five reasons for travelling the group that never prefers the bike ( incurable car users ) is larger than the group that never prefers the car (table 3). Table 3 shows some differences between the five reasons for travelling: frequenting a café or a cinema effectuates in relatively high persistence of car use while going to work and sporting facilities effectuate a relatively high persistence of bike use. With respect to bringing children to school, relatively more people alternate between the car and the bike.

6 Respondent does make short trips. Respondent never chooses the car. Sometimes bike, sometimes car. Respondent never chooses the bike.. for this reason of travelling i Reason for Number % Number Number Number travelling: % % % Shopping Bringing children to school and to other activities Recreation and sports Frequenting café s, theater, cinema Commuter traffic Table 3 : Number and % of respondents that choose the car, the bike or alternate, for several reasons for travelling With respect to differences in household composition, gender and age, the results showed that within families with children under the age of 12 car use is relatively high, while women and people over the age of 50 have a relatively high tendency to take the cycle. Arguments in favor of biking The arguments which are most decisive for choosing the bike on short trips in general, instead of the car, are (in order of importance): 1. Biking is healthy 2. Biking is fun 3. Biking is beneficial to the environment 4. Biking is a quick way to go from A to B 5. There are good bicycle sheds, so I can park my bike in a safe way 6. Biking is easy: I don t have to look for parking space for my car These remarks are not (only) made by hard-core cyclists who always take their bike; these are also the remarks of people who alternate use their car and their bike on short trips and indicate to use these arguments in the situations in which they prefer to bike. The above list of arguments in favor of biking can be seen as a very positive attitude towards cycling: in the situations that the bike is preferred over the car, this choice is based mainly on the positive aspects of cycling and the

7 positive feelings it brings about (healthy, fun, attribution to society). In second instance biking has in those situations an instrumental value (quick) and only in third instance the choice is based on avoiding negative aspects of car driving (looking for parking space). Arguments in favor of car use The arguments that are most decisive for choosing the car instead of the bike, on short trips in general, are (in order of importance): 1. The weather is bad 2. I can park my car easy and without costs 3. The distances are to long to cycle 4. The car is comfortable 5. I want to avoid cycling when it s dark outside 6. I am short of time and have to stop at different destinations on my way 7. I have to carry a lot of stuff The above remarks are, just as in the former paragraph, made by people who sometimes take the bike and sometimes take the car when they travel on short distances. These people indicate to use above mentioned arguments in the situations in which they prefer the car. The arguments in favor of car use on short trips focus on the positive aspects of car driving, but in a different way as compared to the arguments in favor of cycling: the arguments pro-car all seem to a more or lesser extent to be related to avoiding uncomfortable situations (avoiding getting wet, avoiding getting tired of cycling, avoiding the feeling of social unsafety et cetera) and to time pressure. The availability of (free of charge) parking space is making the choice to take the car even easier. Argumentation processes with respect to different reasons for travelling When we look at the similarities and differences in argumentation between the five different reasons for travelling, we see arguments that are used independent of reason for travelling and we see arguments which are specific to one or more reason(s) for travelling. Argumentations which are mentioned for all five reasons for travelling Independent of the reason for travelling, most people blame the bad weather conditions for their decision to take the car instead of the bike. With respect to cycling, most people base their decision to take the bike on arguments regarding health and fun, independent of reason for travelling. Destination specific arguments The argument having to carry a lot of stuff is, especially for the travel purposes shopping, sport and commuter traffic decisive in preferring the car over the bike. The arguments lack of time and having a chain of destinations to be stopped at is decisive especially for commuting traffic and bringing children to school (for example, bringing children to school on the way to the workplace). Educational motives (giving a good example for your children) influence the choice in favor of the bike only in case of bringing children to school. The availability of good bicycle sheds is decisive for preferring the

8 bike in case of commuter traffic, recreation and sports and frequenting cafe s and cinema s. And social safety is responsible for choosing the car instead of the bike in case of bringing children to school, recreation and sports and commuter traffic. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Whenever someone decides to make a short trip and is able to choose between travelling by car or bicycle, there are several argumentations possible that will influence the final mode choice (bicycle or car). Choosing the bike is based on reasons related to a so-called positive feeling that biking can bring forward in that particular situation (i.e. biking is healthy and fun). On the other hand, the choosing the bike is also related to reasons concerning the practical advantages of biking in general (i.e. biking is easier and quicker as compared to the car, for example because you don t need to find parking space). The results also show that whenever people choose to take the car they mention reasons that relate to the comfort one is experiencing in those situations (i.e. avoiding bad weather, avoiding travelling long distances, avoiding socially unsafe situations et cetera). as well as peoples full calendars due to many trip chains in combination with lack of time. These reasons can differ by travel purpose. Of course habitual behavior plays an important role within the choice between bicycle and car on short distances. But not everyone considers all pros and cons of this choice on a rational level each time a short distance has to be travelled. In our research we were able to get more insight into the aspects that can play a part in these choices. Through this we were able to hand local policymakers points of departures for means by which they can increase biking in their municipality. At the one hand this can be done by using the positive feelings induced by biking itself and on the other hand by removing the impediments that are an obstacle to use the bike on a regular basis. However, it is clear that not all impediments to bike use can be influenced. Obviously, this applies to the weather but also to the perception of distances ( to far to cycle ) or the hectic life styles of certain people. Luckily, more than enough leads for policy makers remain: Early prevention of habitual behavior Local governments can prevent the development of habitual behavior through public information. For example, when moving or job changes are concerned, travel patterns as well as travel modes are debated and renewed completely for the long term. It is recommendable to anticipate as early as possible to these distinct moments in a persons life. For example by discussing long term travel patterns as well as mode choices with people that are about to buy a new home, or are trying to find a new job. Real estate partners, public housing societies or business companies would be possible partners in these discussions. For example by providing these people written of oral information about traffic modes and transport availability in their own (or new) municipality, the delays in travel time by car or different destinations on short

9 distances et cetera. Also, it might be a good option to try seek alliance with business policies related to travel management. Take advantage of the educational aspects related to biking Local governments can take advantage of the importance parents of children up to 12 years weight to educational aspects of biking. Clearly, all parents in the Netherlands consider it important to teach their children how to use their bikes safely and independently. They also feel it is important for them to give the right example. A good way to take advantage of these feelings and attitudes is to build or improve the safety of bike lanes of school-home routes. Also it is important to intensify and improve the attention for traffic education among starting bikers up to the age of 12 years. Attention for social safety related to biking The research results show that the car is preferred above using the bike in situations in which people would like to prevent social unsafe situations such as biking in the dark. Adjusting the biking routes to these circumstances is one of our recommendations. Also, the presence of quality cycle sheds, through which theft can be prevented, seems to be of great importance in making a choice pro bike. The availability of safe cycle sheds on several locations (near offices, sport centers, entertainment centers, schools, et cetera) would increase the bike use. Parking policy The study shows that good parking facilities for people that favor the car on short distances, are an important reason to travel by car instead of by bike. Not just the parking facilities, but also the fact that they can park their car for free motivates these people to use the car on short trips. Difficulty to park the car on the other hand is an important reason to use the bike. Based on this it seems to be very important to pay more attention in relation to parking policies to car trips up to 7,5 kilometer (i.e. 2,08 miles) from one s home. Emphasize positive aspects of biking Local authorities can connect with campaigns to the perception of their local citizens. Through communicational strategies it can be emphasized that biking is quick, fun and healthy, Also it can be communicated how polluting cars are, especially on short distances. These means mentioned above gain strength when they can be implemented by target group oriented methods. It is important to mention that this particular target group focus is also connected to the perception of the policymakers that were involved in this study. They agreed during the concluding workshop that their preference was to develop policy means that are closely related to the different travel purposes (such as: commuting traffic, shopping, sport, et cetera). By looking at the mode choice on short distances from a situational perspective our study has additional value in the sense of local implementation of traffic and transport policy in the Netherlands.

10 5. LITERATURE Connekt (1999). Mobiliteit begint bij de woning: het effect van de woonomgeving op de mobiliteit en vervoerswijzekeuze. MuConsult. Mackett, R.L & Robertson, S.A. (2000). Potential for mode transfer of short trips: review of existing data and literature. London, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Slotegraaf, G., Steg, L., Vlek, C.A.J. (1997). Diepere drijfveren van het autogebruik; ontwikkeling en toepassing van een projectieve onderzoeksmethode voor het traceren van affectief-emotionele determinanten van het autogebruik. Eindrapport, Groningen: RUG. Veling, I.H. (1994). Vervoerwijzekeuze: een kwestie van gewoonte? Verkeerskunde vol 45 afl. 1 p

11 i Respondents only filled in the questions regarding the reasons for traveling that they come across in daily life, so the number of answers differs between the reasons for traveling.