ABSTRACT

We analysed the spatial conditions for Car Dependency (CD) in three European cities and their suburbs, to investigate the following research question: What are the potential travel mode alternatives to the car, and how do they relate to actual travel behaviour? We defined CD as the lack of alternative transport modes to the car for reaching daily destinations. We selected three mid-sized city regions with different planning traditions and travel behaviour: Eindhoven, Southampton and Aachen. The results demonstrate that the differences in CD in the three cities are not substantial. The suburbs show a substantially higher CD than the city proper; however, when considering the e-bicycle as an alternative transport mode, this difference decreases. Daily amenities are largely within walking distance, in cities as well as in suburbs. For the daily commute there seems to be great potential for the (e)-bicycle as most employees, living both in the cities and their suburbs, currently live within 15 km of their jobs. Overall, our research shows that the differences in the actual modal split in the three cities cannot be explained by differences in the spatial conditions for CD.

摘要

我们分析了三个欧洲城市及其郊区的汽车依赖 (CD) 空间条件，以研究以下研究问题：汽车的潜在出行方式替代品是什么，它们与实际出行行为有何关联？我们将 CD 定义为汽车缺乏到达日常目的地的替代交通方式。我们选择了三个具有不同规划传统和旅行习惯的中型城市地区：埃因霍温、南安普敦和亚琛。结果表明，三个城市的 CD 差异并不显着。郊区的 CD 显着高于市区；然而，当考虑将电动自行车作为替代交通方式时，这种差异就会减小。城市和郊区的日常设施基本上都在步行距离之内。对于日常通勤而言，（电动）自行车似乎具有巨大潜力，因为居住在城市和郊区的大多数员工目前居住在距离工作地点 15 公里范围内。总体而言，我们的研究表明，三个城市实际交通模式划分的差异不能用 CD 空间条件的差异来解释。