AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES
•
0 gostou•253 visualizações
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]()
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES
Semelhante a AN INVESTIGATION OF CYCLISTS’ PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT JUNCTION TYPES (20)
Último
Último (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!!