Cambridge Travel for Work Survey 2009

[pshore]

I just had to share this survey especially because of the comments section starting p21 - it is a hoot, and at the very least an interesting snapshot into the minds of the Cambridge commuter.

The amount of excuses and grumbling is highly amusing. From reading it you would imagine a life of pain, suffering, and desperation but before you do here are the stats (p20)

Average distance travelled:
Walk 2.33km
Cycle 3.36km
Drive alone 15.9km
All 13.18km

Hmm you go 4 times the distance for the same energy expenditure by bike, so why is cycling distance only 1km more walking ? For a cycle friendly city this isn't a good statistic.

Drive alone:
<2km = 4.68%
2.1-5km = 11.31%
5.1-10km = 16.57%
10.1-20km = 31.52%
20.1-30km = 19.18%
30.1-40km = 6.42%
>40km = 10.32%

So that's:
<10km 1/3 have some excuse for driving
10-20km 1/3 could cycle at least some of the time
20-40km 1/3 shoulda got a job closer to home ?
me, facetious? ooh! :-)



Link to the 2009 Travel for Work Survey
Stats Summary. Appendix B. p20
Comments. Appendix C. p21

My fave ranter:
Truly appalling traffic. Only ever during school term time, the roads are
deserted during holidays. A journey that takes me 25 minutes, door to
door during holidays, takes me anything up to two hours during term
time. I believe there is scepticism to this theory, but I sit in the traffic
every day. It is not just a coincidence. The majority of traffic clearly is
caused by school runs or amendment to hours of work. Too many traffic
light systems, with no apparent symmetry in timings, meaning cars with
a green light cannot move anywhere as the next set of lights 100
meters away are still on red! Park and Ride system is useless
.... a lot more ....

 

[jonesy]

Average distance travelled:Walk 2.33kmCycle 3.36kmDrive alone 15.9kmAll 13.18km

This doesn't surprise me at all, and is comparable with similar figures I have seen for Oxford, Amsterdam and other places where there is a high level of cycle use for everyday journeys. One of the issues is travel time, and in competition with other modes in particular, with cycling's advantage rapidly declining with distance. Secondly, if the condidtions are right, people will consider cycling a mile or two across town in their normal clothing. Much further than that and people will be concerned about gettnig hot and sweaty; once you introduce showers and changes of clothing you immediately reduce the convenience of cycling and it becomes a minority interest. Travel distance has come up frequently in the "London Assembly" thread- it really is important to avoid being too opimistic about how far people will cycle when looking at the potential for modal change. In particular, groups representing cyclists often fall into the trap of assuming that because they are happy to cycle 5 miles or more, then it is realistic to assume other people will. But they won't. Cycling is principally a short distance mode, signficantly overlapping walking and bus travel in travel distance; it can nonethless play a very important role there, but it is important to appreciate the limits.

 

[StuartG]

One of the issues is travel time, and in competition with other modes in particular, with cycling's advantage rapidly declining with distance.

Really? I did 9 miles each way into Central London in about 45 mins. Twice as fast as car so, at that time, the further the distance the greater the gain from cycling. Public transport has slowed over the years - principally because both train and bus routes have been shortened so requiring more changes and would not match bike speed for the same route (Near Crystal Palace to near Euston). I would expect the same applies for many arterial journeys across central London.

I would suggest in congested metropolis conditions it isn't speed/time that limits distance but strength (hauling a heavy load of files up College Road at the end of a hard day wasn't great fun).

Further time/uncertainty spent waiting for bus/train feels longer than the same time spent actually travelling ...

 

[pshore]

That average distance stat doesn't really surprise me that much for here, but when you mentioned Amsterdam, I googled and found that the Dutch cycle to work 5km on average (6km median), and I was expecting more.

3.3km average is still pretty bad. When you read the comments which can be summarised as 'grrr traffic queues' and 'grrr buses are unreliable and expensive', you think people would be forced to be a bit less lazy.

 

[GrasB]

Except for a few villages close to cambridge it can be very daunting for people to ride into town. For this reason it would be very interesting to see the cross town v's out of town for cycling & driving.
The comments are everything I expect. Funny thing is I can actually identify people in EMBS & Security from their comments also they've got the names of some departments wrong

 

[jonesy]

It's worth noting that the survey relates only to the University in Cambridge - not to the wider workforce of Cambridge.

For example, in my organisation we have quite a few staff members who are travelling 50+ miles each way every day, so our average mileage as an organisation is high. However, amongst the cyclists our average commute is 5.6 miles. We have a couple of people who do a 15+ miles each way cycle commute. Mine's bang on 5 miles door to door.

When Addenbrookes did its travel survey, the average cycle commute was about the same - 5.4 miles.

In find that surprising- that's a very high average distance for cycling to work. The National Travel Survey shows ~80% of cycle trips being less than 5 miles. The Cambridge University survey result is more typical for mass utility cycling- noting the Amsterdam figure already quoted (here's the source: http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/89).

I have seen average cycle trips similar to this, indeed we probably had a similar figure at the last place I worked at, a very out-of-town former Government research site, however cycling had a low modal share overall, and those of us who cycled were generally enthusiasts, we showered and changed at work, and were not representative of most of the people you see riding round Oxford and Cambridge in their normal clothes.

I'd be interested to know more about the Addenbrookes survey- what was the modal share for cycling? What was the response rate like? I ask because travel plan surveys, especially at hospitals, often have very low response rates, and that can distort the results, for example because interested groups are more likely to respond.

 

[jonesy]

Really? I did 9 miles each way into Central London in about 45 mins. Twice as fast as car so, at that time, the further the distance the greater the gain from cycling. Public transport has slowed over the years - principally because both train and bus routes have been shortened so requiring more changes and would not match bike speed for the same route (Near Crystal Palace to near Euston). I would expect the same applies for many arterial journeys across central London.

I would suggest in congested metropolis conditions it isn't speed/time that limits distance but strength (hauling a heavy load of files up College Road at the end of a hard day wasn't great fun).

Further time/uncertainty spent waiting for bus/train feels longer than the same time spent actually travelling ...

I've highlighted your last point because it is very important and an important factor in transport demand modelling. People do indeed perceive waiting time, time spent in delay and interchange, to be longer than in-vehicle travelling time, this is reflected in higher values of time used in transport models. The term 'Generalised Time' is used to compare travel times, taking account of actual travelling time plus weighted waiting and interchange times. This is very significant because it means you can improve GT by improving service frequencies, reliability and connections, and so attract more passengers, without increasing speed of travel while on the move. So, if we compare cycling with catching the bus, cycling provides a fairly predictable journey time beginning whenever you want, no waiting or walking to the bus stop time. For shorter trips then, not only is cycling often faster on simple travelling time, but is even better on GT. However, the initial waiting and access time is incurred once, so reduces as a proportion of total GT as the overall journey time increases, so for longer trips this is much less significant. Furthermore, as every extra mile cycled involves extra effort, whereas sitting on a bus you can read and play with your iPhone, travelling time by bus is perceived to have a lower cost and lower GT than cycling (for non enthusiasts). Hence, the GT advantage of cycling over bus travel diminishes rapidly after the first couple of miles.

Additional factors are that on longer bus journeys a greater proportion of the route is likely to be on less congested roads outside the main centres, bus stops are likely to be less frequent and passenger numbers lower, so boarding times are reduced.

Finally, don't forget that the speeds and distances you, and the rest of us here, might be willing to do are not representative of the person who would only cycle if they can do it in normal clothes, without having to change when they get to work, and don't want to get sweaty.

 

[pshore]

Except for a few villages close to cambridge it can be very daunting for people to ride into town. For this reason it would be very interesting to see the cross town v's out of town for cycling & driving.

You might be able to get some of that info from the council website here. But be aware that the numbers may be flawed. I think I recall a discussion somewhere saying that a count was out of term time. I also vaguely recall problems with monitoring locations - ie they only monitor roads and not cycle paths. Eg crossing the radial cordon via the river from waterbeach, the coton cycle path.

 

[pshore]

People do indeed perceive waiting time, time spent in delay and interchange, to be longer than in-vehicle travelling time,
...it means you can improve GT by improving service frequencies, reliability and connections, and so attract more passengers, without increasing speed of travel while on the move. So, if we compare cycling with catching the bus, cycling provides a fairly predictable journey time beginning whenever you want, no waiting or walking to the bus stop time.

That's interesting. Frequency of buses was a problem noted (not sure if the council or stagecoach) on my bus route. As a result, we now have an 'every 10 minute' service during rush hour.

In practice, 10 mins is the average, with no buses to be seen at the ends of the route for 30-40 minutes in the height of the rush hour. Those at work who have tried it when the car has not been practical have been very disappointed and return to their normal mode of transport asap.

I have definitely felt that stress of waiting and not knowing and it is indeed a big turn off.

 

[marinyork]

Travel distance has come up frequently in the "London Assembly" thread- it really is important to avoid being too optimistic about how far people will cycle when looking at the potential for modal change. In particular, groups representing cyclists often fall into the trap of assuming that because they are happy to cycle 5 miles or more, then it is realistic to assume other people will. But they won't. Cycling is principally a short distance mode, signficantly overlapping walking and bus travel in travel distance; it can nonethless play a very important role there, but it is important to appreciate the limits.

It depends how you see it. You could say that planners don't even stick to their remit and aren't ambitious enough. I don't think that it's always that people are too optimistic it's that even on their own criteria of this short journey planners don't have a wide enough vision. When I started cycling, I wouldn't have done some of the commutes I've done since, it's perceived as being 'too far' and that's not counting the extra hills round here. I would and did do 2 or 3 mile rides. I would and did do the sort of <1.5 mile trip to regional hubs that planners round here are not interested in, even though they should be.

Really you have to dissect the planners' scenario of idealised short snappy 2 mile trips into town from somewhere not that hilly. This works fine, there's a lot to be said for it, you get booming simplified trips to the city centre which boosts cycling a lot. My problem with it is if you look at concentric circles of cities like here you get the increase you want in modal share for those middle class affluent areas that are in that 2 mile out region and then you look at a map for other areas in similar geographic locations and it basically just doesn't happen to a great extent. I also think the problem with this approach is that it doesn't even aim to do things on their own criteria. Not everyone works in the city centre, there's no reason why you can't get the same 2 mile trip to regional shopping centres and large work places having a similar thing. I've worked places that are not quite so affluent and a fair bit of the workforce lives within a couple of miles and walks/gets the bus/drives. There's not reason why with the right infrastructure, travel plan, training and other schemes this can't be got up. Instead the organisation was praised for it's travel plan by the council, when as an impartial observer with knowledge of the issues at the time I would rate it as mediocre with some positive aspects.

 

[jonesy]

The point isn't that planners are in some way limiting people to short trips, it is that if you look at places where there is a high modal share for everyday cycling, then average trip lengths are comparably short. You might reasonably expect that in places favourable to cycling that distance would be less of a limiting factor, but in fact what seems to be happening is that as cycling becomes more mainstream then the average trip distance becomes more reflective of what normal people are prepared to do, in normal clothing, rather than what those more enthusiastic about cycling in itself are prepared to do.

 

[GrasB]

Most people cycling fall into 1 of 2 distinct camps
1. those who are enthusiastic cyclists & enjoy cycling
2. those who look at cycling as a quicker version of walking

I'm guessing the typical pedestrian averages at around 3mph, the typical type 2 cyclist travels at around 7mph on flat ground in still air when trying to get from A to B across town. I get these numbers by people telling me how long it takes to get to the NMS from the west site (2.1 miles). Those who walk say it takes about 45min, those who cycle there say it takes 15-20min. Most people aren't willing to travel for more than 30-45min with a form of transport which requires physical exertion. This puts the maximum trip for a type 2 cyclist at 3.5 to 5 miles. As it's the type 2 cyclist you're trying to encourage you need to look at things with that perspective.

 

[marinyork]

The point isn't that planners are in some way limiting people to short trips, it is that if you look at places where there is a high modal share for everyday cycling, then average trip lengths are comparably short. You might reasonably expect that in places favourable to cycling that distance would be less of a limiting factor, but in fact what seems to be happening is that as cycling becomes more mainstream then the average trip distance becomes more reflective of what normal people are prepared to do, in normal clothing, rather than what those more enthusiastic about cycling in itself are prepared to do.

I wish you wouldn't bang on about 'normal people'. I'm a normal person, I'm poor, I didn't have any lycra whatsoever until 3 or 4 years into cycling and cycled in 'normal' clothes. I'm aware that one of the big barriers for cycling is the huge initial outlay of £100 + for bikes, which people basically can't afford.

You seem to have missed the point - that the short trips thing isn't being applied to everywhere like it should be. The planners don't believe in their own data. I actually believe in their own principles more than they do since I think cycling is very suited for trips of up to a couple of miles - everywhere rather than special cases. It seems to be in only the very latest planning applications and latest travel plans that things are finally going in that direction.

Cycling is ridiculously well suited to less than a couple of mile journeys to regional shops, small shops, visiting friends, local work and at times where public transport isn't suited. I'm not expecting people to start cycling 10 miles at all, just doing 0.5-2 mile journeys for some of the things they already do by bus, walk and in some cases drive but which planners round here are not interested in. The commuting belt commuters all have plenty in common here - flatter, less than 2 mile journeys into the city centre in affluent areas with various options whether it be side roads, main roads or off road routes of various standards. As soon as you get further out, poorer or more hills the cycling neighbourhoods vanish.

 

[jonesy]

I wish you wouldn't bang on about 'normal people'. I'm a normal person, I'm poor, I didn't have any lycra whatsoever until 3 or 4 years into cycling and cycled in 'normal' clothes. I'm aware that one of the big barriers for cycling is the huge initial outlay of £100 + for bikes, which people basically can't afford.

You seem to have missed the point - that the short trips thing isn't being applied to everywhere like it should be. The planners don't believe in their own data. I actually believe in their own principles more than they do since I think cycling is very suited for trips of up to a couple of miles - everywhere rather than special cases. It seems to be in only the very latest planning applications and latest travel plans that things are finally going in that direction.

Cycling is ridiculously well suited to less than a couple of mile journeys to regional shops, small shops, visiting friends, local work and at times where public transport isn't suited. I'm not expecting people to start cycling 10 miles at all, just doing 0.5-2 mile journeys for some of the things they already do by bus, walk and in some cases drive but which planners round here are not interested in. The commuting belt commuters all have plenty in common here - flatter, less than 2 mile journeys into the city centre in affluent areas with various options whether it be side roads, main roads or off road routes of various standards. As soon as you get further out, poorer or more hills the cycling neighbourhoods vanish.

Sorry, I really dont know what point you are trying to make here. I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that cycle travel distances are comparatively short in places where there is a high modal share for cycling, and that this should serve as a warning that measures intended to increase cycling therefore need to focus on places where there are plenty of short trips to shift, as opposed to creating route networks that are intended for longer distance trips.

There's no need to take umbrage at the "normal people" reference, I've made it pretty clear that I'm referring to non-enthusiasts, the sort of people who are prepared to cycle for everyday journeys under the right circumstances, but aren't into cycling for its own sake. They are the people whose travel needs and behaviour have to be understood if cycling is to become mainstream, not people on cycling forums.