1. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar1 Identifying the population segments most likely to cycle Tim Ryley Transport Research Institute Napier University

2. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar2

3. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar3 INTRODUCTION Increased motor car dependency Problems associated with motor car Cycling re-emerged on UK & Edinburgh transport policy Edinburgh suitable for cycling Will people change?

4. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar4 INTRODUCTION Part of PhD – which has 2 objectives: Identify population segments most likely to use non-motorised transport Develop methodology to model individual travel behaviour & likelihood to use non- motorised transport Focusing on 1 st objective & cycling aspects

5. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar5 DATA COLLECTION Data collection 1: secondary data from Scottish Household Survey - 2,910 households in Edinburgh collected 1999-2000 Data collection 2: extensive travel behaviour survey of 997 households in West Edinburgh July 2003

6. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar6 SCOTTISH HOUSEHOLD SURVEY(SHS) Sample of 2,910 households Ten population segments were produced using cluster analysis Transport availability was linked to the segments Travel behaviour was examined using SPSS Answer Tree

7. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar7

8. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar8 SHS FINDINGS Key life stages identified of gaining employment, having children & retiring Small proportion (7%) of sample had bicycle available without competition from motor car Of 10 population segments, students had greatest propensity to cycle

9. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar9 SHS FINDINGS Cycling previous week – minority that cycle (6%) tend to be utility or leisure cyclists Journey to work – speed & convenience mentioned for all modes, exercise key advantage for non-motorised transport

10. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar10 WEST EDINBURGH HOUSEHOLD SURVEY Call & post method along transport corridor Four postcode sectors - Dalry to Currie Sample of 997 questionnaires Socio-economic, transport availability, journey & attitudinal variables Two stated preference (SP) experiments: cycle to work, general walk or car

11. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar11 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY CYCLING STATISTICS 42% households had at least one adult bicycle available 18% respondents cycled at least once a month (5% cycled most days) 3% of those in employment cycled to work

12. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar12 ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS Local cycling facility improvements low on favoured transport policy measures Off-road cycle lanes more popular than those on-road 53% respondents agreed safety fears of traffic prevent them from cycling more often in Edinburgh

13. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar13 ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS Responses to cycling statements strongly segmented by gender More men currently cycled Barriers to cycling were greater for women, particularly safety from traffic fears but also topography and weather

14. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar14 SP - CYCLE TO WORK? SP for 620 who travel to work by car / bus / walk Most 422 (68%) would never consider cycling, trip too far or cannot cycle 198 respondents – models yet to be run 4 SP variables for 9 games: journey time, cost (pay to cycle), destination facilities, route Extra qualitative variables: choosing mode & reasons not cycle

15. June 2004Tim Ryley - Lancaster seminar15 CONCLUSIONS Cycling is a minority activity Exercise is an important advantage to stress Policy measures need to emphasise both utility & leisure cycle routes Safety main deterrent to cycling Gender-targeted marketing strategy