AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES
•
0 gefällt mir•253 views
The aim is to quantify how people trade-off to avoid junctions by taking additional time along routes with and without cycle facilities
![AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dissertation-110214032558-phpapp01/85/AN-INVESTIGATION-OF-CYCLISTS-PREFERENCE-FOR-DIFFERENT-JUNCTION-TYPES-1-320.jpg)
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Level of cycle use]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES
Ähnlich wie AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES
- 6. Time Risk Traffic Parkin (2004) Abraham, McMillan, Brownlee & Hunt (2000) Ortuzer, Iacobelli & Valeze (2000) Wardman, Page, Tight & Sui (2000) Sui, Wardman, Page & Tight (2000) Wardman, Hatfield & Page (1997) Hopkinson & Wardman (1996) Bovy & Bradley (1985) Waldman (1977) Person type Facility Hilliness Danger Previous works
- 10. Grouping of video clips Source: Parkin (2004) Note: Clips, numbers coloured, were used in the survey 39 Back street 6, 8, 10 , 28, 31, 32, 36, 37 No cycle facility 19, 20, 49, 50 , 51, 54 Cycle lane 31 Priority 6, 19, 32, 36, 51 Straight on 18 Bus lane 6, 8 , 19, 20 Signalised junction 8, 20, 31, 37 , 50 Right turn 38 Res. street 32, 36, 37 , 50 , 51 Roundabout Clips Types Clips Types Clips Types Turns Facilities Junctions
- 18. Model results (p/1) Contd. (T-ratio in brackets) -0.7059 (-2.5) - -0.7235 (-2.6) - -0.6968 (-2.6) - Bus Lane (DBL) - -0.06715 (-2.5) - -0.0686 (-2.5) - -0.06617 (-2.5) Time + Bus Lane (TIBL) -0.7713 (-7.6) -0.7519 (-7.5) -0.7612 (-7.6) -0.741 (-7.4) -0.7315 (-7.5) -0.7121 (-7.4) Time + no Facility ( TIRNF) 3.886 (7.3) 3.803 (7.1) 3.744 (7.1) 3.659 (6.9) 3.376 (7.3) 3.294 (7.1) Constant 0.2051 0.2047 0.1937 0.1931 0.1677 0.1671 Rho-sq (C) -178.7253 -178.8208 -181.2982 -181.432 -187.143 -187.2676 LL (F) 331 331 331 331 331 331 Observations Facility Time Facility Time Facility Time Multipl. model Additive model Base model Items
- 19. Model results (p/2) Note: 1. RTS – Right turn at signal (T-ratio in brackets) 1.369 (2.5) 1.369 (2.5) NCO*RTS -1.378 (-2.4) -1.384 (-2.5) YOUNG*RTS 1 -0.6833 (-3.8) -0.6848 (-3.8) -0.8862 (-3.1) -0.8846 (-3.1) No car owner cyclists (NCO) 0.8689 (2.5) 0.8753 (2.5) - - YOUNG - - 0.5351 (2.0) 0.5341 (2.0) Urban cyclists (URB) Facility Time Facility Time Facility Time Multi. model Additive model Base model Item
- 20. Rho squared Constant in models Model results (p/3) 18.74 0.2051 0.2524 17.23 0.2047 0.2473 Multiplicative 8.76 0.1937 0.2123 9.17 0.1931 0.2126 Additive 4.28 0.1677 0.1752 4.79 0.1671 0.1755 Base Drop (%) Final Initial Drop (%) Final Initial Facility Time Models -2.17 3.886 3.972 -1.58 3.803 3.864 Multiplicative 5.17 3.744 3.56 7.97 3.659 3.389 Additive 1.63 3.376 3.322 4.34 3.294 3.157 Base Pick up (%) final initial Pick up (%) final initial Facility Time Models
- 24. Thank you!!