EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS

URBAN TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

- S U R V E Y R E P O R T -

for

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

and

THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT (UITP)

INRA(EUROPE)EUROPEAN COORDINATION OFFICE sa

July 1991

INRA (EUROPE) • European Coord.notion Office SA/NV - 16. Avenue R Vondendriessche. 1150 Brussels • BelgiumTel «32/2/772 44 44 - Fox «32/2/772 40.79 - TVA 437 100 707 - RCB . 518 441

Introduction

Over the past years, the problems caused by rapidly increasing urban car traffic havereceived more and more attention both from the citizens directly concerned and frompolitical decision makers. Most Industrialized societies have witnessed a growingenvironmental sensitivity and an increasing concern about the negative consequences ofexcessive car traffic on the health of the urban population and on the quality of life in innercities. This evolution has pushed the issue of fundamental re-orientation of urban trafficplanning and the future of public transport to the centre of public attention.

Therefore the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES decided to set up aEurope-wide public opinion study on the attitudes of EC citizens about the urban trafficproblems and public transport. It involves three different Directorates General of theCommission of the EC:

• DG VII • TRANSPORT responsible for the matter of PUBLIC TRANSPORT• DG XVII • ENERGY, with a focus on the analysis of all energy related aspects ofthe problem of urban congestion• DG XI • ENVIRONMENT, NUCLEAR SAFETY AND CIVIL DEFENCE, introducing theenvironmental issues in the research programme

The project was supported by the INTERNATIONAL UNION of PUBLIC TRANSPORT (UITP).

The study was organised in the framework of the regular EUROBAROMETER surveys andhad the following aims:

to precisely identify the perceptions of the citizens; their problem-awareness andtheir own preferences for different solutions to the problems described;

to compare the different national results in order to identify national specificitiesand common European problems;

to use the insights gained in the citizens' perceptions to actively promote a policyin favour of public transport.

Although national results are, of course, comparable with each other, the attention of thereader should be drawn to the fact that interpreting such differences and their underlyingreasons must always take the different national backgrounds into account: not onlydifferent national infrastructures in the field of public transport, different degrees ofurbanization and car ownership, but also diverging socio-cultural patterns likereceptiveness to 'green issues' must be taken into consideration. To show how importanta role national transport structures and consumer behaviour plays, 70% of the Dutchpopulation use a bicycle everyday or at least several times a week. Such factors cannot

be ignored when developing national policies.

The results presented in this study have been obtained during face-to-face interviews witha representative sample of the European population1. Fieldwork was carried out betweenApril 2nd, 1991 and April 22nd, 1991 in the framework of the EUROBAROMETER-studyof the Commission of the EC. INRA (Europe) is responsible for the coordination of thesurvey, data-processing and data analysis, and the final contents of this report.Data of this type needs to be analyzed carefully before drawing final conclusions. Attitudesof respondents need to be verified beyond face-value. Especially in matters of intensivepublic debate, such as urban congestion and public transport, the "social desirability" ofcertain opinions can, to a certain extent, guide the respondents in their answers.

In accordance with the normal practice for this type of survey the COMMISSION OF THEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES disclaims all responsibility for questions, results andcommentaries. The report, written by INRA(EUROPE) does not necessarily express theview of the Commission of the European Communities or of U1TP.

• i -

Content:

page

Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1 •

I) Perception of the present situation .............................. - 1 -A) Evolution of car traffic in urban areas over the past 10 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1 -B) Consequences of urban car t raf f ic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4 -C) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in urban centres ............. - 6 -D) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in living areas ................ - 8 -E) Risk of traffic accidents in urban areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -10 -

II) Opinion about traffic planning .................................. -13 -A) Which preferential treatment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 13 -B) Correct judgement by political decision makers ...................... -16 -

III) Which means of transport do people use ....................... -19 -A) Who uses public transport and how often? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 21 -

1. Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 21 -2. Tram. Metro. Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 24 -

B) Private cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 26 -1: Private cars as driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 26 -2: Private cars as passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 28 -

C) Bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 29 -

IV) Reasons for not using public transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 31 -A) There are no convenient lines of public transport, catering for my needs, for

example the schedules are not convenient for me or public transportdoesn't go where I want to go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 -

B) Public transport is too stow, takes too long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 33 -C) Public transport is too restricting for me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 35 -D) Public transport is too expensive / public transport is not regular, you cannot

trust the schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -36 -E) Various other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 38 -

.ii.

V) Reasons for using public transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 43-A) Public transport is a comfortable and practical means of getting around ... - 44 -B) I don't have a car or motorbike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 46 -C) Public transport is cheap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 47 -D) Public transport is regular, one can trust the schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 48 -E) Public transport enables me to save time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 49 -F) Public transport avoids accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 50 -G) Public transport does not cause much pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 51 -H) Various other arguments ....................................... - 52 -

VI) Support for different statements about public transport . . . . . . . . . - 55 -A) Confrontation wrth other kinds of people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 55 -B) Changes in petrol prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 56 -C) Confidence in technological progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 57 -D) Increasing cost for the use of cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 58 -

VII. Possible solutions for traffic congestion problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 61 -A) Developing public transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 61 -B) Creating more pedestrian areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 63 -C) Limiting car traffic in town centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 64 -D) Building new urban highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 65-E) Tight parking restrictions in centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 67 -F) Motorist toll for entering urban centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 69 -G) Putting up petrol prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 70 -

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 -

APPENDICES:

Appendix I : Technical specifications of EUROBAROMETER 35.1

Appendix II: Description of the sample

Appendix III: Questionnaire

Summary:

In this summary we concentrate on the results of this survey at the European level A survey onopinion and behaviour regarding traffic problems, public and private transport and its conse-quences, should of course take differences between the various countries into account In thedetailed report that follows, country-by-country and socio-demographic differences are described

extensively.

Car traffic: how big is the problem?

Two thirds of the European citizens are of the opinion that car traffic in urban areas has gottenworse over the past ten years.

Almost six out of ten Europeans consider the consequences of car traffic in their urban area asunbearable or hardly bearable. And almost all of those (90%) consider car traffic as the main oras an important cause of the deterioration of air quality.Figure 1

Three quarters of all European citizens consider car traffic as responsible tor the deterioration ofair quality in inner cities. In the areas where people live. the situation is perceived to be lessdramatic, but stilt close to half of the people see cars as a source of air deterioration there, too.

.ii-

Air quality deterioration is seen as the main negative effect of car traffic, but the risk of trafficaccidents is also seen as important Almost seven out of ten European citizens see "some" or"high" risks for cyclists (eight out of ten of those who find that the consequences of car traffic are"unbearable").

The perceived risk for pedestrians is somewhat lower, the risk for public transport users is seenas the lowest

Preference for future traffic situation : citizens and politicians.

Two thirds of all European citizens opt for a preferential treatment of public transport, whenconflicts arise in traffic planning decisions between cars on the one hand, and public transporton the other. This opinion is largely shared by people who frequently use cars themselves.

A majority of European citizens find that political decision makers do not judge people's feelingson traffic planning correctly; only 19% think that politicians have the correct judgement. One thirdof all Europeans citizens think that people are less in favour of cars than politicians think they are(that is 50 % of those who express an opinion about politicians' judgement and 68% of thosewho think politicians are wrong in their judgement of people's feelings).

Figure 2

•Ill-

Eight out of ten EC citizens consider developing public transport to be an effective means tosolve traffic congestion problems. Other effective means consist of creating more pedestrianareas (75%), and strictly limiting car traffic in urban centres (71%).

Cost increasing measures (toll for cars in city centres and increasing petrol prices) are seen as

less effective by the citizens.

Why not use public transport?

There are no convenient lines of public transport, catering for my needs, for example theschedules are not convenient for me or public transport doesn't go where I want to go." This isthe main reason why four out of ten persons of those, who never or occasionally use publictransport (69% of all EC citizens) do so.

Figure 3: basis = those using public transport occasionally or never; N = 6855.

Public transport is also perceived as too stow. takes too long" (29% of non users), too restrictingfor me" (21 %); "public transport is not regular, you cannot trust the schedules", say 18%. Detailedanalysis (Chapter IV) show that these reasons are mainly given by people who belong to the"white collar" professions. Related to that: most of these reasons are supported by those working

-IV-

in urban areas. "Opinion leaders", those who tend to discuss their views with others and try topersuade them, are also the ones who tend to give these reasons for not using public transport

19% of non public transport users say ft is too expensive.

Motives for using public transport

With a view to publicity measures, it is of crucial importance to be well aware of those motives thatare listed by people who do use public transport (29% of all interviewees).

Figure 4: basis = those using public transport at least once a week; N = 3719.

More than four out of ten public transport users find it "a comfortable and practical means ofgetting around". But we should warn that opinion leaders are less positive about this point thanothers.

While we observed before that one out of five non-users found public transport too expensive.we now observe that almost one out of every three users find it cheap.

- V -

21% of the users find public transport "regular, one can trust the schedules", and 20% say rt"enables me to save time". The fact that public transport prevents accidents is a reason that plays

a role for 18% of the users.

15% of them use it because public transport does not cause much pollution. These observationsare important when confronted with the previous findings: although large majorities of theEuropean population are convinced that pollution and accident risks are related to car traffic inurban areas, these negative factors only manage to motivate 4% to 6% of the total population to

use public transport.

It is also important to note that opinion leaders support both arguments (pollution and accidentrisk) rather strongly.

Five concluding statements on usage versus non'usage.

1. In general terms we can observe that nearly the same type of arguments, motivating theusers positively, are used by non users in a negative way.

2. People appear to be very much aware of traffic congestion problems, have very negativeopinions about it. but this hardly makes them decide to use public transport.

3. Objective advantages of public transport, when available, seem to play a role in people'sbehaviour, but only a limited one.

4. But their awareness of the traffic problems, certainty in urban areas, makes them say thatpublic transport should be further developed and car traffic limited, whether they are carusers or not

5. This is what people expect from urban planning and, consequently, from urban politicaldecision makers. Citizens feel that politicians overestimate them in being in favour of cars.

- 1-

I) Perception of the present situation

A) Evolution of car traffic in urban areas over the past 10 years.

65% of European citizens are of the opinion, that car traffic has become worse in the course ofthe past decade. The question, if car traffic in urban areas has improved, has not changed or hasgot somewhat worse over the past 10 years, was the starting point of the analysis. Only a very

small minority (14%) thinks that the situation has improved.

Figure 5

E v o l u t i o n of car t r a f f i c i nurban areas over past 10 years

In all EC member states, the perception of an aggravating situation obtained a significantlystronger support than the opposite answer. In eight out of twelve countries, more than 60% of allinterviewed shared such a negative view: Italy (83% "worse": 5% "improved"). the United Kingdom(83%: 7%), Luxembourg (75%: 9%), and Greece (72%: 11%) are situated above the European

.2-

average (65% : 14%). In Spain (62% : 16%). Belgium (62% : 15%), Germany (62% : 13%) andIreland (62%: 22%), the results confirm this tendency to a slightly tower degree. In Prance (45%: 23%), the Netherlands (45% : 25%), Portugal (43% : 30%) and Denmark (40% : 22%), theevolution of car traffic is perceived as less threatening than in the other countries. But still, a car-

critical attitude prevails.

All interviewees were asked about their 'degree of urbanization', that is the fact of living and/orworking in an urban area of more than 100.000 inhabitants. Within the total population, thoseliving and/or working in an urban area in general display a more negative perception of thesituation (11% "improved" vs. 71 % "has got worse") than the EC average. Quite naturally, thoseinterviewed who are not living or working in an urban area, were slightly less pessimistic: 16 %thought that the situation has improved, and 60% believed that the situation has become worse -still an absolute majority. The same is valid even for frequent car users: 66% of them replied that

car traffic has got worse.

The results of all questions can be confronted with socio-demographic variables like age, sex,opinion-leadership2, education, profession, etc. of all respondents. A closer look at the resultsof this question reveals the following details: with increasing age, the interviewed become morecar-critical; the same is true for opinion-leaders.

The occupational status of the interviewed has been summarized to group the results into thefollowing categories:

Independent: Farmer/fishermen, professional (lawyers, medical practitioners, etc.), shop- orcompany owners.

'White collar": employed professional, general management, middle management, other officeemployees, non-office employees (non manual);

'blue collar': supervisors, skilled manual workers, other manual workers;other: retired, housewife or not otherwise employed, military service or temporarily not

working.

-3 -

Table 1: Degree of urbanization by different professional groups (%, EC 12+).

In the case of the question, whether in the course of the past 10 years the car traffic hadchanged, the results obtained from the several groups particularly stand out: employedprofessionals (82% "worse": 8% "improved"), independent professionals (76%: 8%), and otheroffice employees (72%: 11 %) are of the opinion that car traffic in urban areas has become worse.These professional categories can be considered as the groups most directly concerned byurban traffic problems: 'white collar' workers appear to be concentrated (living and/or working)in urban areas (see table 1). They are thus more frequently affected by urban traffic difficulties.and - as we will see later - they more frequently opt for the development of public transport asthe best solution to these difficulties.

- 4 -

B) Consequences of urban car traffic.

"Would you say that the consequences of car traffic in this urban area are bearable, hardlybearable, or unbearable?" The responses obtained to this question widely vary across the ECcountries. With the exception of Denmark, where 71 % of interviewees think that the consequencesof urban car traffic are "bearable", people from most of the other member states consider carsas an important nuisance for urban areas.

Figure 6

The average results for the EC (56% "hardly bearable" and "unbearable", as opposed to 39%"bearable") clearly show that most Europeans are aware of the damage to the orban environmentIn three countries. Italy (80% : 15%), Greece (71% : 26%) and Luxembourg (69 % : 29%). thisperception is particularly widespread. In Spain (61% : 36%). Belgium (59% : 39%). the Nether-lands (53%: 39%). and Germany (52%: 44%), still more than half of all interviewed are scepticalabout the effects caused by cars. Portugal (49% : 42%). France (49% : 47%) and the United

- 5 -

Kingdom (48%: 50%) show a more or less balanced score. Only in two countries - Ireland (40%: 56%) and Denmark (26% : 71%) - we find a dear majority of those thinking that the conse-quences are "bearable".

On the EC level, these negative consequences are perceived stronger by opinion leaders andolder people. But also people in the two age groups (25-39 and 40-54 years) that make mostfrequently use of a car (see chapter III.B of this report) do not particularly deny the negativeconsequences of cars: only 39% respectively 41% think these are "bearable".

An analysis by usage of public transport against non-usage shows that the evaluation of the trafficsituation in urban centres is not related to actual usage of public transport Those who think thatthe situation is "hardly bearable* or "unbearable" do not use public transport more frequently thanothers.

Within the professional categories, independent professionals, office employees and retiredpersons were more critical towards cars than average; responses obtained from the general andthe middle management were less critical Apparently urbanization did not influence the answers:even 54% of those not living or working in an urban area confirmed that consequences were"hardly bearable" or "unbearable", as opposed to 41 % saying that the situation is "bearable". Theresults obtained from interviewees living and working in cities (40% "bearable" against 60%"hardly/not bearable") were only slightly higher.

The results of all questions have further been confronted with the results obtained from onespecific question: whether interviewees believe that local politicians in urban areas correctlyinterpret people's feelings in the domain of traffic planning. In case of a negative answer, twoalternatives were put forward: a) no. politicians believe that people are more in favour of cars thanthey actually are in reality: b) no, politicians believe that people are less in favour of cars thanthey actually are in reality. A cross-tabulation of these results allows us to analyze, what preciselythe groups of those satisfied or unsatisfied with the judgement of urban politicians think about thepresent traffic situation and possible solutions suggested.

In the specific case of evaluating the consequences of urban car traffic, the group that thinkspolitical decision-makers do judge people's feelings correctly were in fact the only ones showinga majority (57%) to assess the car situation as "bearable".

- 6 -

C) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in urban centres.

A broad majority (76%) of all Europeans believe, that cars are to a large extent responsible forthe deterioration of the air quality in inner cities. We are not aware of any front-page news onsmog-alarm or smog-related traffic restrictions on cars during the interviewing period, so it would

seem that a large majority of Europeans is aware of the negative impact of cars.

Figure 7

For the sake of presenting a dear overview, the different answer-categories of this question havebeen grouped in the graphics: 'pro-car' answers are on the right, 'anti-car' answers are on theleft. On the EC average, the answers of those thinking that cars are "an important cause of airdeterioration among other sources" (42%) or even "the main cause" (34%) add up to 76%.compared with 21% thinking that cars are relatively harmless in this respect

A comparison of the national results shows that the Italians are particularly worried (93% harmful: 4% harmless). In nine out of twelve countries. 2/3 of all interviewees share the view that cars aredamaging the air-quality in urban centres. In the remaining three countries, an absolute majority

.7.

does. These results clearly underline how strong these convictions are in all EC countries. Itshould be noted as well, that the percentage of those thinking that cars do not cause any deterio-ration at all was extremely weak all over Europe, varying between 17% in Greece and 1% in theEastern part of Germany and in Italy. Compared to that, the percentage of those in support ofthe other extreme point of view - that cars are the main cause for a deterioration - wassignificantly higher in all countries: the minimum was 19% in the Netherlands, the EC average was34%, and the maximum - obtained in Italy - was 50%.

The following social groups share a more critical attitude towards cars: young people (79%harmful: 18% harmless), the better educated (79%: 19%), students (82%: 16%), and people witha high score on the opinion leadership index:

Among the professional groups, office employees (86% harmful: 12% harmless), independentprofessionals (85%: 13%). and employed professionals (83%: 14%) had a more critical attitudetowards cars than the EC average in general and the different sub-groups of workers and thenon-professionalty active in particular.

Once again, those of the interviewed who are directly affected by the problem because they areliving and working in a city. showed a more critical attitude towards cars: 85% believed that carsare to an important degree responsible for the decline of the quality of air in urban centres: only14% thought that cars only cause slight or no deteriorations at all. Those living and workingoutside urban centres were again slightly less critical (69% vs. 26%).

The group of respondents, who considered the present situation as "unbearable", were the onesto particularly consider cars as mainly responsible for the deterioration of air quality in urbancentres:

.8.

care an the main causetor air deterioration

cars are an importantcause, among others

cars only causealight deteriorations

cam do not cause anydeterioration at all

dont know, no answer

Total

those saying•bearable*

22%

40%

25%

11%

3%

101%

those saying•hardly bearable*

37%

49%

10%

3%

2%

101%

those saying•unbearable'

50%

40%

8%

2%

2%

100%

averageEC 12

34%

42%

15%

6%

4%

101%

D) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in living areas.

The second part of this question was probing more specifically into the effects of cars on thequality of air in the living areas of the interviewed. It led to different results: On the EC level, amajority (52%) now believes that cars only cause "slight deteriorations* or even "no deteriorationat air in living areas. 44% think, that cars are the main cause or an important cause among othersfor the degradation of the air quality.

Only in Italy the relation which is favourable for cars was reversed: 52% of Italians thought thatcars were harmful to the air-quality in their living areas, while 46% said that cars were harmlessin this respect In all other countries, the interviewees - to a rather widely varying degree -supported the view that cars are not the main cause for air deterioration. Once again, we findDenmark (26% harmful: 66% harmless) and Ireland (24% : 71%) at the bottom of our ranking.

Those with a higher education and those who are to be considered opinion leaders scored abovethe overall EC average. A majority of employed professionals and other office employees (56%and 53% respectively) were convinced of the rather negative consequences of cars for their livingarea. On the other side, farmers were particularly convinced of the insignificance of cars in thiscase: only 16% considered them as harmful

.9.

Figure 8

Car users (42% harmful vs. 54% harmless), and - to an even higher degree - those neither livingnor working in urban areas (31% vs. 64%) believed that cars are only to a small proportionresponsible for the bad air in living areas. Among those, who actually live and work in cities, thisperception was reversed: 64% of these urban residents agreed upon the large responsibility ofcars for the deterioration of air quality. The same was the case for the majority of public transportusers (55% vs. 42%).

As in the case of the previous part of the question, interviewees who were particularly criticaltowards the consequences of car traffic also tend to think that cars are responsible for thedeteriorating air quality in living areas: A clear majority (55%) of those saying that consequencesof car traffic were "unbearable" expressed the opinion, that cars are harmful to the air quality inliving areas, compared to 43% of all EC citizens.

.10-

E) Risk of traffic accidents in urban areas

The interviewees were asked to evaluate • on a scale ranking from 1 (= low risk) to 6 (= highrisk) - the risk of traffic accidents in urban areas that users of different means of transport arerunning (pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers and public transport users). Public transport is in altEuropean countries and by far considered to be the safest means of urban transport 78% of allinterviewees said that the risk to public transport users is low; only 17% considered their risk tobe high. The risk to users of other means of transport was perceived as being significantly higher:

Figure 9

Country-by-country scores for public transport vary between Denmark (6% high risk, 90% lowrisk) and Italy (25% high risk, 71% tow risk). In each of the member states, however, publictransport is seen as the safest means of transport

For car drivers, the risk is perceived to be much higher; national results vary between on the onehand Denmark (26% high risk, 73% low risk) and on the other Italy, showing quasi inverted results(66% high risk. 31% low risk).

-11-

Figure 10

The evaluation of the risk for pedestrians varies between Denmark (35% high risk. 65% low risk)and the Eastern parts of Germany (69% high risk, 30% low risk).

Finally, the risk for cyclists was perceived to be relatively less dramatic in Portugal (51% high risk.41% low risk), but very much so in the Eastern parts of Germany (83% high risk. 15% tow risk).

A closer look at the socio-demographic variables reveals a significant difference in perception ofthe risk to public transport users between men and women: women (74% low risk) tend toconsider public transport as somewhat less safe than men do (82%). Other categories perceivingpublic transport as less safe, compared to the average, are: elderly people in the age group 55+years (74% low risk), those respondents who have a low opinion leadership index (69%). and theless educated (71%).

It should be underlined, that these opinions concerning safety are independent from the actualuse of public transport (see chapter III) in daily life. If we look at transport behaviour in daily life.both public transport users (80% low risk) and non-users (77%) show rather similar opinions.

-12-

Those who have a negative Judgement of the consequences of urban car traffic also have a morepessimistic opinion on the traffic safety of all means of transport than other citizens:

Those saying that consequencesHigh risk for... of care are 'unbearable' EC average

...eye— 80% 68%

...pedestrians 73% 55%

...car driven 65% 49%

...public transport users 25% 17%

-13-

II) Opinion about traffic planning

A) Which preferential treatment?

The interviewees were asked a series of questions related to the fundamental orientations of trafficplanning and the future support for different means of transport Three concepts were submittedto their judgement These concepts assumed the existence of conflicts in traffic planning decisionsbetween private cars and other means of transport (public transport cyclists and pedestrians).The interviewees were asked, to which means of transport preference should be given in the caseof conflict

Figure 11

The majority of Europeans in all member states are against further preferences given to carswhen conflicts arise with the interests of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course, theabsolute strength of these convictions varies from country to country. It should be noted as well.

-14-

that the level of "don't knows" was quite high (often reaching about 10%, in some cases even upto around 20% in Greece and Ireland, and up to around 30% in Portugal). But in all casessubmitted to the judgement of the interviewees, less than 30% opted for further preferences givento care, in many cases only between 10% and 20%.

A closer look at the case of conflicting planning decisions between public transport and privatecars confirms the above statement The European average in favour of preferential treatment forpublic transport reaches 73%, against 14% in favour of cars. This result clearly shows theimportance that citizens attribute to the further development of public transport. Support for thefurther development of public transport is even stronger in six member states: Italy (82% favourpublic transport: 9% favour cars), Spain (80%: 9%), Luxembourg (79%: 14%). the Netherlands(78%: 14%), Germany (75%: 14%) and the United Kingdom (74% : 16%). The other countries.Denmark (69% : 19%), Greece (68% : 11%), Portugal (65% : 7%), Belgium (64% : 22%) andFrance (62% : 62%), still have more than an absolute majority in favour of public transport. InIreland, which ranks last, almost twice as many citizens (49%) opted in favour of preferentialtreatment for public transport than for cars (25%).

This generally positive attitude to the further development of public transport was shared by allsocio-professional groups, but the strength of support varied slightly. On a scale ranking from +1(= dear preference for cars) to +4 (=clear preference for public transport), the EC average was3.17. Stronger approval for public transport could be observed among opinion leaders (3.27) andemployed professionals (3.35). Employed.professionals in fact belong to the most frequent usersof tram/underground and train.

As expected, those living and working in urban areas (3.21) and - of course - public transportusers in general (3.33) opt for a further preferential treatment of public transport. But evenfrequent car users show a rather high degree of support (3.12). Expressed in percentages, thismeans that 45% of car users opted for "preferential treatment for public transport with certaindisadvantages for private cars", and another 29% of car users opted for "clear preferentialtreatment for public transport to the detriment of private cars". In the case of conflicting planningdecisions, only 15% opted for preferential treatment for private cars, to the detriment of, or withcertain disadvantages for public transport

As shown in figures 12 and 13, the results obtained from two supplementary questions givefurther evidence to the argument that Europeans are dearly against further preferential treatmentfor cars where conflicting traffic planning decisions are concerned. In the case of conflicts

-15-

Figure12

Figure 13

between pedestrians and private cars. 75% of all interviewees took the side of pedestrians. Thisopinion was supported most strongly in Italy (83%). the UK and the Netherlands (both 80%).

-16-

Spain (79%), and Denmark (78%). Even in Portugal (63%) and Ireland (59%) - the two countriesat the bottom end of the scale - a dear majority opted for further preferential treatment forpedestrians.

In the case of conflicts between cyclists and private cars, the overall tendency was similar. 64%of all Europeans took the side of cyclists, as compared to 23% for private cars. Support forcyclists was very high in the Netherlands (81%), Denmark (76%) and Italy (71%). Again, Irelandand Portugal showed a relatively weaker support for cyclist: 52% of the Irish opted for furtherpreferential treatment for cyclists, and 24% for cars. Portugal was the only EC country, that camedose to a balanced support for cyclists (37%) and cars (30%).

B) Correct judgement by political decision makers.

Interviewees were asked whether they believe that political decision makers in their urban areahave judged people's feelings on traffic planning of the people correctly or not The vast majorityof those expressing an opinion on the subject are convinced that political decision makersresponsible for traffic planning in urban areas do not make the judgements of people's feelingscorrectly on these issues.

Before analyzing the national results in greater detail, attention should be drawn to the fact thatthis question obtained a particularly high percentage of "don't know" responses, varying between18% in the UK and 41% in Portugal (average EC 12 = 28%).

The European average of 53% "not judged correctly" compared to only 19% "judged correct"reveals a lack of confidence in politician's capacity to appropriately react to the desires andpolitical preferences of their electorate in the field of traffic planning. This opinion is prevailing inItaly (63% "not judged correctly" : 12% "judged correctly"), in the U.K. (57% : 24%). and inGermany (55% : 16%). In Greece (53% : 15%), Luxembourg (53% : 27%), Belgium (52% : 14%)and in the Netherlands (51 %: 22.%). an absolute majority of interviewees shared this perception.In all other EC countries, the feeling about inaccurate judgements by decision makers was lesswide-spread. However, nowhere did the view that people's feelings were correctly assessed bypolitical decision makers prevail.

.17-

Figure 14

Figure 15

- 18-

A closer examination of those who think that politicians have a incorrect perception of reality leadsto the following results: a broad majority of citizens are convinced that people are in reality lessin favour of cars than decision makers think they are. Between 26% of all interviewees (inPortugal) and 44% (in the Eastern part of Germany) share this view, the EC12 average is 36%

The opposite opinion - people being in reality more in favour of cars than politicians think theyare - is supported to a much lesser degree. The maximum was obtained in the Western part ofGermany (21%) and the minimum in Portugal (10%). the European average being 17%.

Socio-professional categories: within the group of those thinking that political decision makers dojudge people's feelings correctly (EC average = 19%), only few variations could be observed: thisoption obtained a particularly low score among the independent professionals (12%). A higherpercentage (26%) of supervisors considered the politician's judgement to be correct

The opinion that people are less in favour of cars than politicians believe (EC average = 36%),is particularly shared by employed professionals (49%), other office employees (44%). and themiddle (42%) and general management (39%). It obtained a particularly low score amongfarmers/fishermen (28%), supervisors (26%) and retired people (32%).

For this item. the degree of urbanization and the transport behaviour of the interviewee plays animportant role: 44% of those living and working in an urban area supported the view thatpoliticians over-estimate people's favourable view of care, compared to 31 % of those neither livingnor working in cities. 41% of public transport users and 36% of car users shared this opinion. Itshould be underlined that only 16% of car users believed that politician's judgement is correct

The last option - people being in reality more in favour of cars than politicians believe - onlyscored slightly above the EC average (17%) within two groups: the general managers (23%) andthe independent professionals (27%). Finally, only 16% of car users actually said that people inreality are more in favour of cars than politicians believe.

-19-

Ill) Which means of transport do people use

In the questions analysed until now, the analysis of people's opinion has been dominant We triedto identify what precisely people in the EC think and believe about certain concepts related totraffic problems and public transport Now we want to analyse the interviewees' actual behaviourin this domain. Naturally, this depends not only on their personal preference for one means oftransport or another, but it is largely determined by other factors (existing transport infrastructurein urban and rural areas, income and the fact of having a car or not, demographic factors, etc.)

Figure 16

In order to identify the mobility of people in everyday life, they were asked for their frequency ofuse of various means of transport For our analysis, a specific factor was attributed to each of thepossible answer categories in order to facilitate the comparison and interpretation of the results.The following scale was used:

-20-

Frequency of use

• (almost) everyday• 1-2 per week• 1-3 per month• lees than 1 per month• not in past 6 months

=

=

factor

105321

The average values obtained and represented in the graphics facilitate the comparison of resultsfor different countries and different means of transport

The summary graph clearly indicates that the direct comparison between the combined resultsof public transport (bus, tram/metro/train) on the one hand, and private cars (used as drivers andpassengers) on the other, leads to rather unfavourable results for public transport In fact. the useof private cars is. in all European countries, significantly higher than the use of public transportThe most favourable result for public transport obtained in the Eastern part of Germany, shouldbe carefully interpreted. Obviously the situation in the ex-GDR is changing. East Germans havebeen using cars less frequently and public transport (and bicycles, etc.) more frequently thanWest Germans. These results are linked to a different organisation of social life, and will probablychange toward to the pattern of the ex-FRG in the near future.

On the following pages, we shall analyse in greater detail the results for each of the differentmeans of transport Although listed as an option during the interviews, taxis have not beenincluded here for their minor statistical significance3.

' The EC average of use tor taxis is 1.50; the highest results were obtained in Greece (2.37). the U.K. (2.06) andLuxembourg (2.03)

-21 -

A) Who uses public transport and how often?

The two figures on the previous page show the overall social, demographic, and professionalcomposition of the group of public transport users. In the following part of this report, the resultsobtained for each of the means of public transport shall be analyzed in greater detail

1. Buses: Buses are the means of public transport most widely used in the EC (average = 2.97).They are particularly popular in Greece (3.76). in the U.K. (3.35) and in Portugal (3.33). The scoresobtained in Luxembourg (3.14), Italy (3.11), Denmark (3.06) and Spain (3.06) are still above theEuropean average. On the lower end of the scale we find Germany (2.93), the Netherlands (2.64)Ireland (2.53), France (2.43) and finally Belgium (2.33).

Figure 17

-22-

Figure 18

Figure 19

-23-

When we examine the socio-demographic groups, we observe a significant difference betweenmen (2.65) and women (3.27) concerning the frequency of using buses. The scores in the

different age groups also show a lot of variation:

15 - 24 years =4.14, this high index is due to the fact that 24% of all intervieweesin this age group use buses everyday or almost everyday.The corresponding EC average is 12%.

15-39 years = 2.55;40 • 54 years = 2.61; we see that the age groups that are most active in profes-

sional life achieve a score that is distinctly below average.

55 years + = 2.84; use of buses within the group of older people is slightlybelow the average.

The highest index among all socio-professional groups was obtained by those who are stillstudying (5.0).

Within the different professional groups, buses are relatively popular among office employees(3.28) and those doing their military service or those who are temporarily not working (3.23). Onthe other hand, shop or company owners (1.90), farmers (1.92), the general management (2.13)and independent professionals (2.26) less often use buses; a fact that can probably be explainedby the transport and flexibility requirements related to their professional activities.

Among those living in an urban area, the frequency of bus use was significantly higher (3.83) thanthe EC average; those working in an urban area (3.49) equally obtained an above average score.Within the group of frequent public transport users, buses were more often used (6.95) thantrains, trams, and metres (4.23).

.24.

2. Tram, Metro, Train:

The European average (2.17) shows that trams, metres and trains are generally less frequentlyused than buses. Of course, these results have to carefully interpreted for each countryseparately, and must be seen - as was already mentioned before - in an overall perspective ofthe existing infrastructure (how many metros/trams exist in the different urban and metropolitanareas, number of commuters, seriousness of traffic congestion problems, competitiveness ofprices etc.).

Figure 20

Among the national results, the Eastern parts of Germany score highest (2.85), but again we cansuppose that these results will sooner or later be closer aligned to the results obtained in theWestern pans of the country (2.36). The frequency of using trams, metres and trains in theNetherlands (2.32). Denmark (2.31). France (2.22) and Belgium (2.19) is above the EC average.Italy (2.13). Spain (2.07). Portugal (2.02). Greece (1.97) and the United Kingdom (1.92) are nottoo far below this average. The results from Ireland (1.42) and from Luxembourg (1.10) aresignificantly lower.

-25-

A breakdown of the results by socio-demographic categories leads to similar findings regardingthe use of trams, trains or metres as was the case for buses: old people (55 years + = 1.83) areless frequent users, while young people between 15 and 24 (2.88), those still studying (3.55) andopinion leaders use these means of public transportation more often.

Within the professional groups, we find the following groups who use trams, metres or trains lessthan the average citizen: farmers (1.52) and shop owners (1.61), supervisors (1.88). skilledmanual workers (1.83) and other manual workers (1.92), housewives (1.76) and retired (1.81).

On the other hand, the "white collar" groups tend use trams, trains, and metres more frequently:professionals (2.60). employed professionals (2.93), the general management (2.52), the middlemanagement (2.54), and other office employees (2.51) score higher than the average.

The frequency of use of these means of transport obtained a relatively high index (3.00) amongthose living and working in urban areas. 2.83 among those only living there, and 3.12 amongthose working there.

-26-

B) Private cars

1: Private care as driver. While most people are aware of the negative consequences of cartraffic in urban areas in general, and or. the deterioration of air quality in particular, the samepeople continue to use cars as their preferred means of transport in everyday life. The use ofprivate cars as driver (5.54) obtained by far the highest average score among all means oftransport suggested. On top of that, using private cars as passenger (3.85) clearly scored

second.

Figure 21

Of course these results are related to the variation of wealth within the EC, factors like GNP.ownership of cars. and road networks. Luxembourg (6.38). France (6.36), Belgium (6.26) and theWestern parts of Germany (6.23) obtained scores above the index 6.00. Denmark (5.96). Italy(5.80). and the UK (5.58) are placed above the EC average. Then follow the Netherlands (5.45)and Ireland (5.38) with dose-to-average results. Spain (3.81), Portugal (3.54) and Greece (3.45)obtain significantly lower scores.

-27-

The analysis of the socio-professional categories leads to results, that could nearly be expected:men (6.85) drive cars more often than women (4.31), as do the professionally active age groups(25-39 years = 6.98,40-54 years = 6.50) when compared to young (15-24 years = 4.81) and oldpeople (55 years + = 4.03). And although opinion leaders are particularly conscious of trafficproblems, they are also well represented among those taking the steering-wheel most frequently:

The data obtained from the different professional groups show plausible results: People workingoutside their homes, like farmers, professionals, managers, employees and workers, drive a carmore often than the average, while pensioners, housewives, and soldiers score below theaverage.

occupation

Independent

ProfessionalsShop/company ownersFarmers/Fishermen

EmployedGeneral managementProfessionalsMiddle managementOffice employeesOther employees

WorkersSupervisorsSkilled manual workersOther manual workers

OtherMillitary serviceRetiredHousewives

average

8.14 .7.657.05

8.608.137.807.176.65

8.147.465.89

4.823.823.56

percentage Within groupdriving a ear (almost) everyday

726757

7772676155

736447

362321

-28-

2: Private care as passengers. When compared with the previous section, the data look differentwith regard to the distribution of results among both the EC countries and the socio-professional

groups.

When we look at the index expressing the use of private cars as passengers, the EC average(3.85) is exceeded by the UK (4.39), Belgium (4.36). the Netherlands (4.20). Denmark (4.15) andItaly (4.09). The results from Greece (3.83), Ireland (3.80), Luxembourg (3.70), Prance (3.68).Spain (3.59), and Germany are relatively closely grouped together. Portugal (2.75) scores at the

bottom.Figure 22

With regard to the socio-demographic and professional groups, it was to be expected that theinverted version of the. previous question's distribution would be found. However, the results didnot show as much variation as before: women (4.46) use cars more often as passengers thanmen (3.17). and students (5.34) and young people in general (5.03) more often than the otherage groups (25-39 years = 3.87. 40-54 years = 3.64, 55 years + = 3.22). The professionalcategories that scored particularly high for their active use of the car, use it less frequently aspassengers than the average, white housewives (4.56) and soldiers (4.33) score above theaverage here.

-29-

C) Bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes.

A comparison of the indices of the use of bikes, mopeds and motorbikes (EC average 2.95)shows that they are used as often as buses (2.97). But in the case of "two wheels", the nationaldifferences vary to a much larger degree, which is obviously due to the very high results obtainedin two countries: the Netherlands (6.72) and Denmark (5.39). In the Netherlands, 53% of allinterviewees said they use this category of vehicles (almost) everyday (Denmark = 40%. ECaverage = 14%). Another 17% of the Dutch use them once or twice per week (Denmark = 14%,EC average = 12%). Germany (3.88) Belgium (3.64) and Italy (3.14) score above the EC averageas well. The Irish results (2.52) are between the EC-score and the remaining group of countries,which score around 2.00.

Figure 23

With the exception of young people (4.16). students (4.78) and - at the other end of the scale -old people (2.40) and particularly the retired (2.31), no important variations were observed withinthe socio-demographic groups.

.31 .

IV) Reasons for not using public transport:

In order to find out precisely what prevents people from using public transportation in daily life,a list of reasons was presented to the interviewees. The following figure presents an overview ofthe importance attached to these reasons.

Figure 24: basis = those using public transport occasionally or never; N = 8855.

On the following pages, we shall examine each of these reasons in closer detail.

-32-

A) Reasons for not using public transport: There are no convenient lines of public transport,catering for my needs, for example the schedules are not convenient for me or publictransport doesn't go where I want to go.

Throughout the Community, this was the reason most frequently cited (38%) by those who don't

use public transport, when they were asked for their motives.

Figure 25

In some of the countries though, this response was given even more often: in Italy (52%), inGermany (51%). in Denmark and Luxembourg (43%). and in Belgium (40%), inconvenient lineswere cited very frequently. The same reason was less important for the interviewees in theNetherlands (36%). in the UK (30%) and in France (27%). It obtained a relatively low score in theother Southern European countries: Portugal (31%), Greece (24%) and Spain (21%).

Inconvenient lines as a reason for not using public transport were particularly important foropinion leaders and for the better-educated, while housewives (32%). soldiers (30%) and oldpeople (27%) considered it as less important

.33-

Looking at professional groups, an interesting phenomenon becomes apparent We haveobserved before, that three specific groups, middle management, employed professionals, andother office employees, were relatively frequent public transport users. Within these same groupsthere are a large number of non-users who give the lack of convenient lines as a reason for then-

behaviour:

Prof. group

supervisorsmiddle managementgeneral management

farmer/fishermenemployed professionals

professionalsother offlce employeesother manual workersskilled manual workers

avenge of PT usage(EC average = 5.14)

4.37&204.653.445.924.865.794.774.32

% of non-users citing this reason(EC= 38%)

54

53

5151

52

4645

45

43

More research is needed to conclude whether this phenomenon is a result of pure (selective)perceptions about the existing facilities, or whether in their case there is an 'objective' lack ofconvenient lines. Nevertheless, the lack of convenient lines typically appears to be an argumentused by the active population and the more so by white collar groups.

B) Reasons for not using public transport: Public transport is too slow, takes too long.

Again, the opinion that public transport is too stow was particularly wide-spread in the North ofEurope: in Denmark (36%). the Netherlands and Belgium (35%), and Germany (30%). Thisargument was frequently cited in Greece (31%) as well. Italy, Ireland, and the UK (all 27%),Luxembourg (25%) and Spain (24%) are close to the EC average (27%). In Portugal (21%) andin France (19%), this reason was slightly less often cited.

As was the case with regard to the previous reason (inconvenient lines) we find that men (30%)list the slowness more often than women (23%); young people do so more often than old people,and those situated at the top of the opinion-leadership- and education-scale more often thanothers.

-34.

Figure 26

This lack of speed on the part of public transport is of particular importance to the white collarprofessions:

general management 41%,office employs 38%.middle management 35%.employed professionals 34%.non-office employees 32%.

The lack of speed was less important tor workers - with the exception of skilled manual workers(32%) - and the independent professions.

The lack of speed of public transport is particularly important tor those who are either living andworking (36%) or only working (36%) in urban areas.

-35-

C) Reasons for not using public transport: Public transport is too restricting for me.

Both the country-by-country comparison and the breakdown by professional groups show similarpatterns as before. Non-users of public transport in the Netherlands (33%), Belgium (32%),Denmark and the UK (25%), and finally Germany and Ireland (24%) cited the argument of publictransport being too restricting more often than the EC average (21 %). France (22%), Luxembourg(20%) and Italy (18%) are relatively dose to the EC result The other Southern European countrieshave significantly lower results: Spain (9%). Greece and Portugal (8%) are below 10%.

Figure 27

The notion that public transport is too restricting was roughly speaking important for the workingpopulation, and more so tor white collar workers. It was particularly wide-spread amongindependent professionals (30%). supervisors (34%). skilled manual workers (26%) and - as inthe case of the previous arguments - employed white collar professions: professionals (31%),middle management (30%), other office employees (26%), and general managers (23%) cited thisargument for not using public transport more often than others (workers, independents, andhousewives).

-36-

For most of the suggested reasons for not using public transport, people working in citiesobtained results dose to the EC average. The degree of urbanization of the interviewees thus didnot play an obvious role - except for two specific arguments: "public transport is slow" and "publictransport is too restricting" Both reasons are important for those who are working in urban areas.

D) Reasons for not using public transport: Public transport is too expensive (EC = 19%) /public transport is not regular, you cannot trust the schedules (EC = 18%).

Both reasons for not using public transport obtained results close to 20 % on the EC level.Figure 28

The argument of public transport being too expensive is difficult to compare between memberstates because the results are related to different national income structures and varying ratestor public transport. The argument of cost is frequently listed in the Netherlands (36%). Germany(31%), Belgium (29%), the UK (28%). and Portugal (25%). The Danish result (19%) equals the ECaverage. The remaining countries obtain significantly lower outcomes, ranging from 13% for Spainto 7% for France at the bottom end of the scale.

-37-

When judging the reliability of public transport schedules, the scope of variation between thenational results is even wider. The argument of unreliable schedules was voiced by the non-usersin Italy (28%) and in the UK (26%). Most of the other countries obtained results between 12%(Germany) and 21% (Belgium). Unreliable schedules were scarcely cited in two of the ECcountries: in France (8%), and in Denmark (4%).Figure 29

Apart from those who are still studying ("too expensive" = 26%, "unreliable schedules" = 25%),no particularly striking variations in results could be observed within the demographic groups.

Support tor the statement that public transport is too expensive varied between 11% (shopowners) and 23% (middle management and manual workers). (General and middle) managementclaim that public transport is too expensive and, at the same time. that public transport is tooslow, the underlying argument being 'time is money'.

The argument of unreliable schedules was particularly often cited among employed professionalsand other office employees (29%). People living and/or working in urban areas gave this answermore frequently (23-24%) than the EC average.

-38 -

E) Various other reasons for not using public transport

As shown before in figure 24, the other motives for not making use of the public transportnetwork appeared to play an unimportant rote. On the whole. lack of information, physicalproblems, the argument that "public transport is not for people like me", or lacking cleanlinessseem hardly to be the reasons that make people run away from public transport. The same is truefor "not feeling safe on public transport" or "unfriendly star.

I am not well informed about public transport services:

On the EC average, 9% of the interviewees gave this reason for not using public transport.

Figure 30

In four of the EC member states, more than 10% non users of public transport said they were notwell informed about public transport services. These countries are Germany (14%). Luxembourg(12%), Italy and Belgium (11%). Lacking information seemed to be slightly less important for non-

-39-

users in Ireland, in the UK (both 8%), in Denmark and in Greece (both 7%). Only 6% of the non-users in France and in the Netherlands gave this answer. Finally, missing information about the

services was rarely cited at all in Portugal (4%) and in Spain (3%).

I have physical problems, disabilities which make the use of public transport difficult

5% of all non-users in the EC said that physical problems were one of the reasons not to use

public transport

Figure 31

The frequency of this argument in the 12 member states did not vary significantly. The highestfrequency of this answer was obtained in the UK (8%), while non-users in France (3%), Spain andGreece (both 3%) cited physical problems less often.

As was expected, the motive of physical problems was particularly often cited by old people (55years + = 11%, retired = 14%).

-40-

Public transport is not for people like me:

On the EC level, only 5% of those who do not frequently use public transport gave this reason.

Figure 32

A comparison of the national results shows, that this argument was slightly more often cited bynon-users in Ireland (10%). Belgium (8%), Italy (7%). the UK and Spain (both 6%). This reasonhardly plays a role at all for non-users in Luxembourg (3%) and in Germany and Portugal (2%).

Education, age, sex, and opinion leadership index does not seem related to the invoking of thisreason. Slight differences could be observed between some professional groups: independentprofessionals (9%) and shop or company owners (7%) gave this answer relatively often, but it wasless important for employed professionals (3%) and general managers (1%).

-41 -

Public transport is dirty:

5% of the non users in Europe said that lack of cleanliness is a reason for them not to use publictransport

This result was more often found among non users in the ex-GDR (15%) and in the UK (12%).In Greece, Ireland and Portugal (all 3%), in Spain and Luxembourg (both 2%), and in Denmarkand the Netherlands (both 1%), a lack of cleanliness of public transport hardly played a role.

Within the professional groups, three results can be mentioned: employed professionals (14%).supervisors (11%), and soldiers (10%) cited this argument relatively often.

A final remark: when interpreting these results, it should be kept in mind, that not all of thereasons for not using public transport have been identified comprehensively; 28% of theinterviewees for this question cited other reasons, which were not included in the originallypreceded reasons for their behaviour.

.43.

V) Reasons for using public transport

The next step of the analysis identifies the motives of those using public transport in daily life. Thefollowing figure presents an overview of the reasons given by public transport users.

Figure 33: basis = those using public transport at least once a week; N = 3719

In a next step. these reasons will be examined more closely.

.44.

A) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport is a comfortable and practical

means of getting around.

On the EC level, this reason tor using public transport was, with 42% by tar most often listen. Thefact that this reason is mentioned more often than the lack of alternative private transport only

adds to its importance.

Figure 34

A closer look at the national results reveals large differences: In Italy (60%) and France (62%).around 2/3 of the users said that public transport is comfortable and practical Percentages torthis assessment of public transport outscore the EC average of 42% in Portugal and Belgium(50%), as well as Luxembourg (46%), Denmark (44%), and Spain (43%). The result obtained fromIrish users follows closely (40%). Results from the Netherlands (35%), the UK (34%) and Greece(31%) hover around the 1/3 mark, and only Germany (22%) - and especially the ex-GDR (14%) -scores rather low.

.45-

Users who can be considered as opinion leaders appeared to be somewhat more critical (++= 38%, -- = 46%) about the comfort and practicality of public transport

Among professional groups, the differences in results are of a much more distinct nature. Thefrequency of citing the argument that public transport is comfortable and practical varies between12% (farmers) at the bottom end of the frequency scale, and 59% (independent professionals)at the top.

Public transport users above 55 years of age (47%) mention this reason to a much higher degreethan other age groups.

Other variables, like urbanization, use of different means of transport, or agreement with politicaldecision makers' judgement, do not seem to be related to the degree of support for this andmost of the following reasons for using public transport.

-46-

B) Reasons for using public transport I dont have a car or motorbike.

Throughout the EC, 35% of public transport users state that they use it, because they do notpossess a personal car or motorbike.

Figure 35

National variations of the results obtained for this argument were wide-spread again. Among theEuropean public-transport users, this argument was cited most frequently in Ireland (54%) andin the UK (48%). In five other countries, the frequency of this argument surpassed the ECaverage: Denmark (44%). Belgium (42%). Portugal (40%). the Netherlands (38%) and Greece(36%). Below the EC-average (35%). we encounter Spain (33%). Italy (32%), Luxembourg (31 %),and Germany (30%); France scores very low with 23%.

Using public transport due to tacking alternatives is particularly important for young people (45%)and for those still studying (42%). Besides that. ft is interesting to note that men cite this argumentless often than women (32 vs. 37%). as do opinion leaders (33% for those with a high opinionleadership index, compared to 41% for those with a low index).

-47.

C) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport is cheap.

29% of European public transport users said they do so because it is cheap. Again, results varywidely by country:Figure 36

The incentive of a low price is frequently cited in Greece (55%). Italy (41%). and Spain (37%). Theresults obtained tor this reason in Denmark (34%), Luxembourg (33%) and the Netherlands (31%)are clearly situated above the average as well France (30%) and the UK (28%) come dose to theEC result In Ireland (22%), Portugal (21%), Belgium and Germany (both 16%), the publictransport's price tag does not seem to play a very stimulating role.

The low price is often referred to by the less educated and soldiers (both 34%). As could beexpected, this argument was less frequently cited by the general and the middle management(22 and 20% respectively). For these rather wealthy income groups, the cost of public transportdoes not seem to play an important role in the decision to use it or not The tact that it can savethem time, however, does. Apart from these remarks, very few significant variations wereobserved among the socio-demographic and professional groups.

-48-

D) Reasons tar using public transport: Public transport is regular, one can trust theschedules.

Figure 37

The regularity of public transport schedules stands out in Germany (29%) when compared to theEC average of 21%. Within this country, we can observe a targe discrepancy between theWestern parts (33%. the highest result), and the Eastern part (14%. EC-wide one of the lowestresults). The results from most of the other countries come in fact very dose to the EC average,the only significant exceptions being Italy (15%), Spain (14%) and Ireland (13%).Among the socio-demographic groups, one result particularly stands out 40% of supervisorsusing public transport said they do so because they can rely on the schedules. This resultamounts to nearly twice the EC average. Most other demographic and professional groupsdeviate only slightly (3-4 percentage points) from the EC result, the only exceptions being theretired (26%) on the one hand and soldiers (16%) on the other.

.49-

E) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport enables me to save time.

EC-wide, level, 20% of public transport users stated they do so because it enables them to savetime. The national results show a relatively wide diversity. Public transport users in France (33%)and Portugal (29%) clearly score above the average. Users in Greece and in the Netherlands

(both 5%) seem to attach little value to this argument

Figure 38

When we examine the results among the different professional groups, one conclusionimmediately becomes evident: "saving time" is a major argument in favour of public transportamong the white collar professions, and especially so for independent professionals (48%). Thefact that 27% of the highly educated supported this option as well, provides additional evidenceto this conclusion.

The argument of saving time was one of the few items, where varying results within the differenturbanization-groups could be observed:

.5O-

working in urban ana 27%living and working in urban area 24%living in urban area 20%neither living nor working in urban area 15%

F) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport avoids accidents

Figure 39

The traffic safety of public transport was particularly appreciated by Its users in Italy and in theex-GDR (both 24%). The other national results were rather dose to the EC average of 18%.Portugal (14%) and Prance (13%) rank at the bottom end of the scale in this case.Once again, opinion leaders and the group of higher educated cited this argument morefrequently than their counterparts in the respective groups.

.51 .

G) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport does not cause much pollution.

Support tor this ecological argument was very unevenly spread throughout the Community. TheEC average of 15% is composed of rather high results obtained in the Netherlands (32%).Germany (29%), and Denmark (26%) on the one hand. and tow results from public transportusers in Greece and Portugal (both 4%), and France and Ireland (both 6%) on the other. Thisargument only moderately motivates users in the remaining countries: Luxembourg (14%), Spain,

the UK and Italy (all 12%), and Belgium (11%).

Figure 40

The environment-friendly quality of public transport was particularly appreciated by. once again,opinion leaders (24%). and the better educated (23%). It is therefore reflected in a slightly higherscore for white collar workers.

.52.

H) Various other arguments for using public transport

Public transport is modem: This motive was relatively wide-spread among users in the UK (23%)and Ireland (22%). but was mentioned only by 13% of all European users.

Figure 41

Public transport's modernity plays a role for older people, the lower educated and those with alow opinion leadership index, supervisors (32%). other manual workers, housewives, soldiers andretired (all 16%). The different groups of employees all obtained below-average results.

Easy access for old and disabled persons counted in Germany (14%), in the UK (13%), andin Ireland (11%). and obtained an average of 9% throughout the EC.

Not surprisingly, old people, the ones directly concerned, died this argument nearly twice asoften (17%) as the average citizen, while opinion leaders (5-7%) and the higher educated (5%)did hardly give it as a reason.

.53-

The cleanliness of public transport was not unimportant for the users in the Netherlands (11%)and in Germany and Ireland (both 9%), but the EC average of 5% clearly indicates its low overall

significance.

The attitude of the staff obviously played a neglectable role as a motive: the highest results wereobtained in Portugal (8%) and in Ireland (6%), while its 3% EC average represents the lowest

result for any of the possible reasons to use public transport

It should be underlined, that most of the reasons in favour of public transport are also recognizedby those public transport users, who also use other means • especially cars - on a regular basis.The results obtained for these groups were not distinctively lower than the EC average • in thespecific case of avoiding accidents, car drivers (20%) cited this argument even slightly more oftenthan the EC average (18%).

Public transport users who have a negative opinion on the consequences of urban car traffic citedseveral 'practical' reasons for using public transport more often than others: 44% of those sayingthat these consequences are "unbearable" cited public transport's comfort and practicality, 33%its low price, 21% its time-saving qualities and the motive of avoiding accidents.

.55.

VI) Support for different statements about public transport

A) Confrontation with other kinds of people.

The vast majority of citizens in every member state strongly disapprove of the following statement:"/ personally do not feel very much at ease when using public transport because I might have tosit next to people of another nationality, of another race, of another culture or of another social

class.' 89% disagree either slightly or strongly.

Figure 42

If we only consider the two most forceful statements - "agree strongly" vs. "disagree strongly" -this unambiguous result becomes even reinforced: only 2% of all interviewees "agree strongly"with the above statement with regard to other kinds of people, while 72% of all interviewees"disagree strongly". In France, even though the level of agreement is highest of all member states.it still only amounts to 14%.

.56-

The same opinion is nearly unanimously shared by all different social, demographic orprofessional groups. No significant deviations of the results could be observed. Those who areactually using public transport, rejected the statement even somewhat more (92%) than the group

of non users (88%).

B) Changes in petrol prices.

Most EC citizens (60%) agree with the statement: 'Up till now. changes in petrol prices have notaltered my use of the car.', but 23% of the Europeans state that they have changed theirbehaviour. It should be noted as well. that the percentage of people responding with "don't know"or giving no answer at all was rather high (EC =17%). especially in the case of Greece (44%)and Spain (27%).

Figure 43

-57.

Among those who say they actually introduced changes into their use of cars due to changes inpetrol prices, the Greeks are foremost (34%). Luxembourg and Italy (both 31 %), Germany (27%),and Portugal (24%) still score higher than the EC average. In the other countries, between 17%and 21 % of respondents indicated a change in the use of cars. Danish car users appeared to bethe least affected (11%) by changing petrol prices.

Several groups among the interviewees claim to have even less frequently altered their use of thecar. Men (65%) seem to be less influenced by changing petrol prices than women (56%).probably because they are more likely to use a car for professional purposes; the same is truefor the professionally active age groups between 25 and 54 years, for opinion leaders and for thebetter educated. A more-than-avarage proportion of all professional groups - with the exceptionof other office employees - say that changing petrol prices did not cause them to modify their useof cars.

As ft was to be expected. 69% of frequent car users claimed not to have changed their behaviour.against 42% of public transport users. Urbanization did not play a role: city dwellers andcommuters did not change their behaviour more or less frequently than others.

C) Confidence in technological progress

40% of EC citizens agrees with the statement that technological progress will ultimately solve theproblem of traffic congestion, while 44% disagree.

The national differences were distinctly marked. Scepticism about the technological capacities tosolve the problem of traffic congestion was strongest in the UK (54%). Luxembourg (54%), andthe Netherlands (53%). In Italy (47%), Germany (43%), and Belgium (41%), disagreement was stillstronger than agreement In France (41%) and Denmark (40%), respondents had a ratherbalanced view hi favour of or against the proposal, while interviewees in Spain, Ireland, Portugaland Greece tended to have confidence in the problem solving capacities of technologicalprogress. Once again, the percentage of those who did not express an opinion was rather highin all countries, varying between 11% in the Netherlands and 32% in Portugal

•58-

Figure 44

This scepticism was slightly more pronounced among opinion leaders and the better educated,as well as among independent and employed professionals.

Car users and public transport users do hot disagree on this statement Urbanization did play arole in the response: the level of agreement was higher among those living and working in ruralareas.

D) Increasing coot for the use of cam.

'Public authorities should contribute to solving the problems of congestion by increasing the costof using cars' This statement, implying direct negative consequences on the financial situationof most interviewees, was obviously unpopular. In the entire Community. 64% of respondentsrejected increasing car costs, and only 29% agreed. In the Netherlands (46% pro vs. 48%against), the supporters and those opposed were almost in balance. Support for increasing costsin Spain (42%), Luxembourg (35%). the UK (34%) and in Portugal (31%) was situated at a level

.59-

superior to the EC average, in all other countries, support was rather weak. varying between 27%

in Denmark and 20% in France.

Figure 45

With the only minor exception of those still studying (37% "agree" vs. 55% "disagree"), price-increasing measures would be equally unpopular among all socio-demographic groups.

It should be underlined that rejection of such cost increases was not exceptionally strong amongcar users : 26% of car users even agreed with higher costs. Naturally, support for increasingcosts for cars was stronger among public transport users (35%), but still the majority of this group(56%) clearly rejected this suggestion. Increasing car costs meets opposition especially amongsupervisors and general managers (both 77%). and skilled manual workers (72%).

.61 -

VII. Possible solutions for traffic congestion problems

Seven different concepts for the solution of traffic congestion problems were presented to theinterviewees. They were asked to indicate for each of these concepts, whether they believed thatit constituted an effective or ineffective solution for traffic congestion problems. A detailed analysisof the strength of support for the different concepts will show, that Europeans are strongly infavour of developing public transport, but are much less convinced of the effectiveness of other

concepts implying immediate negative financial consequences.

On the following pages, these possible solutions are examined in detail, in decreasing order ofsupport

A) Developing public transport

Among the various solutions for traffic congestions, developing public transport was stronglysupported by the interviewees. 80% of all EC citizens believed that developing public transportconstituted an effective means to improve the present situation. Only 14% of all interviewees saidit was ineffective. Backing for this solution was strongest in Spain (89%) and Italy (88%). Resultsfrom Germany (80%) and Portugal (79%) were very close to the EC average. In the UK (76%).Luxembourg (75%), the Netherlands (74%) and France, almost three out of every fourinterviewees opted in favour of the further development of public transport In Ireland (70%).Belgium (66%), and Denmark (63%). supporters of this solution outscored opponents by morethan 2:1.

Support was particularly high among the higher educated and opinion leaders:

-62-

Figure 46

Within the professional groups, white collar professions once again scored very highly:

Those neither living nor working in cities supported the further development of public transportslightly less frequently (78%) than those living and/or working in urban areas (83-84%). Theevaluation of the consequences of urban car traffic slightly influenced the results: 83% of thosejudging these consequences as "unbearable" opted for the further development of publictransport, compared to 'only' 76% of those thinking that the consequences are "bearable".

Even 80% of the car users were of the opinion that this would be an effective solution.

.63.

B) Creating more pedestrian areas.

This solution turned out to be the second most popular solution to traffic congestion problemsamong EC citizens. 75% of interviewees believed creating more pedestrian areas to be "effective":while only 18% believed the measure to be "ineffective". The national results varied within arelatively narrow margin. Support for pedestrian areas is particularly strong in the ex-GDR (82%).This result is quite different from the one obtained in the Western part of Germany (64%. thesecond lowest). In the group strongly supporting pedestrian areas, we find Spain and the UK(both 80%), Italy (79%), Greece and France (both 78%), Portugal and Ireland (both 76%), andBelgium (75%). Luxembourg (74%) and the Netherlands (72%) are not far below the EC-average,and only Germany (67%), and Denmark (57% "effective", vs. 36% "ineffective") are not so veryconvinced of the effectiveness of more pedestrian areas as a solution to traffic congestion.

Figure 47

.64.

C) Limiting car traffic in town centres.

The two previous approaches to finding a solution to the problem of traffic congestion can bedefined as 'constructive' ones: at first sight, they do not involve personal limitations upon inter-viewees.

The next possible solution is the first one posing direct and concrete restrictions on many people.Still, limiting car traffic in town centres was widely perceived as an effective measure. ThroughoutEC. 71% of interviewees opted for, and only 22% against this particular measure. Support forlimiting car traffic was strongest in Denmark (81 %), followed by Italy (78%). the UK (76%), Ireland(74%), the Netherlands (73%). Luxembourg (72%), and Spain (71%). Germany (69%), Portugal(68%), Greece (65%), France (63%), and Belgium (62%) scored under the average. Nevertheless.all member states displayed an absolute majority of those of the opinion that strictly limiting cartraffic in town centres was an effective solution.

Figure 48

.65-

Once again, opinion leaders and the better educated supported this option to a relatively greatextent. Support for this solution from white collar professions was higher than the EC average.Supervisors (67%) and skilled manual workers (66%) showed the lowest degree of support of all

professional groups.

The hypothesis that support for traffic limitations would be influenced by the evaluation of theconsequences of urban car traffic, was confirmed by the results. 74% of those saying that theseconsequences are "unbearable* opted in favour of car traffic limitations.

It is interesting to observe that respondents who are living or working in urban areas (71-72%)have the same opinion on traffic limitations in dty centres as respondents from rural areas. Thesame is true for frequent car users.

D) Building new urban highways.

A glance at the graph clearly shows that the issue of new urban highways is a highly controversialone in the EC. In this sense, the calculated average of 59% "effective" and 29% "ineffective" shouldbe carefully interpreted. A closer look at the national result reveals considerable contrasts injudgement as far as new urban highways are concerned:

In the Netherlands (73%) and in Denmark (70%). a very large majority of the interviewees isagainst new motorways as a remedy for traffic congestion. Only about a fifth of the wholepopulation there is convinced of their effectiveness. In Luxembourg (51%) and in the Westernparts of Germany (44%), resistance against new urban highways is much lower, but is still moreimportant than support for them. In the UK (43%), Germany as a whole (39%). and Belgium(38%), respondents who are against this measure are already outscored by supporters. In Irelandand the mediterranean EC countries, those thinking that new highways are an effective solutionfor traffic congestion problems constitute a very broad majority. France (19%). Spain (16%),Greece (15%). Italy (10%). and Portugal (5% "ineffective" against 82% "effective") clearly opt infavour of new urban highways - a fact that could partly be explained by the present state of thehighway infrastructure in these countries, which might be perceived as insufficient

.66

Figure 49

This (tern was one of the few, where a difference in perception between men and women becamevisible: 62% of the men said that new urban highways were "effective", whereas only 56% ofwomen were of this opinion. Within the professional groups and sub-groups, the support for newhighways was in fact very diverse, ranging from general management (47% "effective") toindependent professionals (66%) and shop owners (68%).

Once again, the degree of urbanization hardly influenced the results. Support for new urbanhighways was similar among city dwellers, commuters and non-city dwellers:

Support for new urban highways was neither exceptionally strong (61%) among car users, norexceptionally weak (56%) among public transport users. But it is remarkable that a relatively highpercentage (64%) of those who think that consequences of urban car traffic are "unbearable"opted for new urban highways as a solution for traffic congestion problems.

-67-

A closer look at the other results obtained by those who think that new urban highways are aneffective solution shows that this specific group seems to be at least somewhat incoherent in itsopinion. The same people that believe in the effectiveness of new urban highways, turned out tobe outspokenly critical of cars in previous questions:

65% of them said that car traffic in urban areas has gotten somewhat worse;

58% of them said that consequences of car traffic in urban areas are "hardly bearable" oreven "unbearable";

76% of them said that cars are the main cause or an important cause of the deteriorationof the air quality in urban centres; 43% of them even said that cars are harmful to the airquality in their own living area.

74% of them opt for further preferential treatment of public transport instead of cars in thecase of conflicting traffic planning decisions;

and, finally, 72% of them think that "strictly limiting car traffic in town centres" is an effectivemeans to solve traffic congestion problems.

E) Tight parking restrictions in centres.

As in the previous case. the support for this solution varied widely among the different memberstates. In Ireland (78%) and Luxembourg (74%). roughly three out of every four intervieweesbelieved in the efficiency of parking restrictions. Support was very high in Greece (67%). the UKand Denmark (both 65%), Portugal (64%), Germany (61%), and Spain (58%). These countriesscored well above the EC average of 53% of interviewees thinking that tight parking restrictionsin town centres constitute an "effective" solution to traffic congestion. In the Netherlands, thegroup of supporters was slightly smaller, but continued to make up a majority (52%). In Belgium(40%). France and Italy (both 38%), tight parking restrictions were not very much favoured as aneffective solution against traffic congestion.

.68-

Figure 50

Opinion leaders displayed a slightly stronger support (58% "effective") for parking restrictions than

others. Those between 25 and 39 years of age were critical: 49% considered the restrictions as

"effective", against 45% who found them "ineffective". Vvithin the professional groups, the resultswere comparably varied as for the previous item. Employed professionals (63%) were more

convinced of this solution than independent professionals (49%) or office and non-officeemployees (46% and 49% respectively).

As for the suggestion of strictly limiting the access of cars to crty centres, it was surprising to seethat tight parking restrictions were not categorically refused by car users: on the contrary, 52%of them were of the opinion that such restrictions were an effective solution.

-69-

F) Motorist toll for entering urban centres.

This solution, which entails immediate costs for anyone entering a city by car. was the second-most unpopular. In no member state, support was greater than rejection. The EC average • 65%"ineffective" against 25% "effective" - clearly shows the low degree of acceptance this measurecould count on. Among the member states, Denmark scored exceptionally high: 45% of itscitizens were in favour of an urban toll system, no less than 10 percentage points more than inthe following country. In Ireland and Luxembourg (both 35%), and the UK (34%), about one thirdof interviewees supported this solution. Germany (27%), Italy and the Netherlands (both 24%) arerelatively close to the EC average. In the other countries, weak levels of support varied between21% in Spain and 17% in France.

Figure 51

All socio-demographic and professional categories, including the breakdown by urbanization,transport behaviour, or perception of politicians' realism, agreed to a similar extent on theineffectiveness of motorist-tolls. The only exceptional result was the relatively high degree ofsupport for this solution among employed professionals (39%).

.70.

G) Putting up petrol prices.

Figure 52

While a motorist-toll would only affect those who actually enter a city by car, increasing petrolprices would have to be paid by every car user. whether they are adding to urban trafficcongestion or not That might be the reason why this solution was even more unpopular than theprevious one. At the EC level, only 12% of interviewees considered higher prices to be aneffective means to reducing traffic congestion; 80% were convinced of its ineffectiveness. The levelof those saying that higher petrol prices were "effective" was highest in the Netherlands, wherea quarter of the population accepted them. Support was relatively strong in Luxembourg (22%).Germany (16%). Denmark and the UK (15%), and Ireland (12%). Stronger objections wereencountered in Portugal and Spain (both 10% "effective"), Belgium (9%). Greece (9%). Italy (7%).and France (5% "effective", against 89% "ineffective").

-71

Conclusion

The results of this survey dearly show, that most Europeans are aware of the seriousness oftraffic problems in urban areas. In the opinion of the majority of European citizens, a negativedevelopment has taken place over the last years: car traffic has got worse (65%), theconsequences of urban car traffic are hardly bearable or even unbearable (56%), 76% believe thatthe car is either the main cause or an important cause for the deterioration of air quality in urbancentres, and the risk of accidents tor most of the participants - with the only exception of publictransport users • is perceived as considerably high.

In such a situation, a majority of all interviewees (53%) thinks, that urban political decision makersdo not judge people's feelings concerning traffic planning correctly; more than one third of allEuropeans said, that in reality people are less in favour of cars than these politicians believe theyare.

An even stronger majority of citizens is against further preferential treatment of private cars, whenconflicts arise in traffic planning decisions. In the case of a conflict between cars and other meansof transport, 75% of all interviewees opted for preferential treatment for pedestrians, 73% forpublic transport, and 64% for cyclists.

In spite of the respondents' knowledge about the negative impact of car traffic in urban zones,the private car remains the most frequently used means of transport When asked for theirreasons for not using public transport, many non-users listed the following reasons : noconvenient lines (38%), lacking speed of public transport (27%), or the feeling that publictransport is too restricting (21%), too expensive (19%) or simply unreliable (18%). Other reasons.like the attitude of public transport staff, the cleanliness or users' feeling of safety obviously onlyplayed a minor rote. Within the group of public transport users, the corresponding, essentiallypractical arguments were most frequently cited when asked for the reasons for using publictransport

When asked for their degree of support for several statements related to traffic and publictransport, Europeans responded as follows:

-72.

a very broad majority (89%) disagree with people who say "/ do not feel very much atease when using public transport because I might have to sit next to people of anothernationality, of another race, of another culture or of another social class '.

most citizens (60%) said not to have altered their use of the car due to changing petrolprices;

a comparable percentage (64%) of citizens disagrees with the statement, that publicauthorities should contribute to solving the problem of (traffic) congestions by increasingthe cost of using cars.

opinions on whether technological progress will ultimately solve the problem of trafficcongestion are rather balanced: 40% agree, 44% disagree.

Finally, when asked for the effectiveness of various measures to solve traffic congestion problems.most of the Europeans (80%) think that developing public transport is "effective". Support is highfor the creation of more pedestrian areas (75% "effective"), or limiting car traffic in town centres(71% "effective"). Other measures, like the creation of new urban highways or tight parkingrestriction in centres were considered "effective" by a majority, but contested by a significant partof the interviewees. Other measures, that would imply direct financial consequences, wereconsidered as "ineffective" by most of the interviewees.

Appendix I

Technical specifications of EUROBAROMETER 35.1

EUROBAROMETER 35.1

Between March 28 and April 25. 1991. INRA(EUROPE) carried out the 35.1 wave of theSTANDARD EUROBAROMETER, on request ofthe COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEANCOMMUNITIES and of the INTERNATIONALUNION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT (U.LT.P).

Entre le 28 mare et to 25 avril 1991. INRA(EUROPE) a réalisé la vague 35.1 de l'EURO-BAROMETRE STANDARD, à la demande de teCOMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTES EURO-PEENNES et de ('UNION INTERNATIONALEDES TRANSPORTS PUBLICS (U.l.T.P).

INRA(Europe) is a European Network of Mar-ket- and Public Opinion Research agencies,co-ordinated by the European Co-ordinationOffice (E.C.O.), Avenue R. Vandendriessche 18.B-1150 Brussels.

INRA (EUROPE) est une chaîne Européenned'instituts de sondage d'opinion publique etd'études de marché, coordinée par le Bureaude Coordination Européen (E.C.O.), Avenue R.Vandendriessche 18, B -1150 Bruxelles.

The results of the Eurobarometer are madeavailable through the Unit "Surveys, Research,Analyses" of the DG ICC of the Commissionof the European Communities. All requestsfor further information should be addressed toMr. Karlheinz REIF. DG X - ICC - SRA. "Euroba-rometer'. Rue de la Loi 200. B-1049 Brussels.

Les résultats de l'Eurobarometre sont disponi-bles à travers l'Unité "Sondages. Recherches.Analyses" de la DG ICC de te Commission de»Communautés Européenne*. Toute de-mande d'information supplémentaire doit êtreadressée à Mr. Kartheinz REIF. DG X - ICC -SRA. "Eurobarométre". Rue de te Loi 200. B •1049 Bruxelles.

All Eurobarometer data are stored at the ZentralArchiv (Universitât Köln, BachemerStrasse. 40.D-5000 Kôln 41). They are at the disposai of allInstitutes members of the European Consor-tium for Political Research (Essex), of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and SocialResearch (Michigan) and all those interested insocial science research.

Toutes les données relatives aux Eurobaromè-très sont déposées au ZentralArchiv (Universetât Kôln. Bachemer Strasse, 40. D-5000 Kôln41). Elles sont tenues à la disposition des or-ganismes membres du European Consortiumfor Political Research (Essex), du Inter-Univer-sity Consortium for Political and Soda) Re-

search (Michigan) et des chercheurs justifiantd'un intérêt de recherche.

DETAILS ON SAMPLING L'ECHANTILLONNAGE

In ail 12 countries of the European Community.in total 13.149 national citizens, of 15 years andover. were Interviewed in face-to-face, in theirprivate residence.

Dans les 12 pays-membres de te CommunautéEuropéenne, au total 13.149 citoyens natio-naux de 15 ans et plus ont été interrogés enface-à-face à leur domicile.

COUNTRY/PAYSNUMBER OF RESPONDENTSNOMBRE DE REPONDENTS (NON PONDÉRÉ)

BelgiqueDanmarkDeutschland (ex-BRD)Deutechland (ex-RDA)EllasEspanaFranceIrelandItaliaLuxembourgNederlandPortugalUK: Great BritainUK: Northern Ireland

The basic sample design applied In all MemberStates is a mum-stage, random (probability)one. In all Member States a number of samplingpoints was drawn with probability proportionalto population size. for a total coverage of eachMember State, and to population density.

For doing so, the points were drawn systema-tically from all "administrative regional units",after stratification by Individual unit and type ofarea. They thus represent the whole territory ofthe Member States according to the EURO-STAT.NUTS II and according to the distributionof the national, resident population in terms ofmetropolitan, urban and rural areas.

In each of the selected sampling points, a star-ting address was drawn, at random. That star-ting address formed the first of a duster ofaddresses. The remainder of the duster wasselected as every Nth address by standardrandom route procedures from the initial ad-dress.

In Great Britain, a full random selection of re-spondents was applied, using electoral regis-ters as sampling basis.

In each household the respondent was selec-ted according to a random procedure, such asthe first birthday method or the KISJ-grid. Atevery such address up to 2 recalls were madeto achieve an interview with that respondentThe maximum number of interviews per house-hold is one. All interviews were taken face toface.

102110001031104610051000107010481074509980

10001059306

Le principe d'échantillonnage, appliqué danstous les pays-membres est une sélection aléa-toire à multiples phases. Dans tous les pays-membres un certain nombre de points de chutesont tirés avec probabilité proportionnelle à lataille de la population, avec couverture totalede chaque état-membre, et à la densité de lapopulation.

Les points de chute sont tirés systématique-ment dans chacune des "unités régionales ad-ministratives". après stratification par unité ettype de région. On représente ainsi le territoirecomplet de chaque pays-membre, selon lesrégions EUROSTAT-NUTS 11 et selon la distribu-tion de la population nationale en termes d'ur-banisation.

Dans chacun des points de chute, une adressede départ est imposée, qui est sélectionnéealéatoirement Cette adresse est la premièred'un duster d'adresses. Les autres adresses duduster sont sélectionnées comme chaqueadresse N. par procédure standardisée de "ran-dom route" de l'adresse Initiale.** En Grande-Bretagne. une sélection purement aléatoire desrepondants est appliquée, utilisant les listesélectorales comme base de sélection.

Dans chaque ménage le repondant est sélec-tionné selon une procédure aléatoire, commela méthode du premier anniversaire ou la grilledite KISJ. A chaque adresse, jusqu'à 2 révisitessont faites pour réaliser une interview avec lapersonne sélectionnée. Pas plus d'une inter-view par ménage n'est admise. Toutes les inter-views sont réalisées en face à face.

REALISATION OF THE FIELD-WORK REALISATION DU TERRAIN

COUNTRY/PAYS

BelgiqueDanmarkDeutschland (ex-BRD)Deutschland (ex-RDA)EllasEspanaFranceIrelandItaliaLuxembourgNederlandPortugalUnited Kingdom

EC12

FROM: / DU:

01/0409/0403/0404/0409/0404/0428/0304/0404/0430/0302/0401/0402/04

TO:/AU:

22/0422/0416/0415/0421/0423/0419/0425/0417/0425/0423/0416/0420/04

POPULATIONTOTAL:

7994.44160.4

51708.013607.07825.6

29427.243318.52501.3

45902.8302.6

11603.67718.7

45721.1

271791-2

In all member States, fieldwork was conductedon the basis or detailed and uniform instruc-tions prepared by the European Co-ordinationOffice (ECO) of INRA (EUROPE).

COMPARISON BETWEENSAMPLES AND UNIVERSES

AND WEIGHTING OF THE DATA

For each of the countries a comparison be-tween the samples and a proper universe des-cription was carried out. This Universedescription was made available by the NationalResearch Institutes and by EUROSTAT.

For all EC-member-countries a national weigh-ting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this

Universe description. As such in all countries.minimum sex. age. region NUTS II and size oflocality were introduced in the Iteration proce-dure. For some countries extra variables wereadded, when considered necessary.

For international weighting INRA (EUROPE)applies the officia) population figures aged 15years and older as published by EUROSTAT inthe Regional Statistics Yearbook of 1988. Thetotal population figures tar input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above.

Dans chacun des pays-membres le terrain estréalisé sur base d'Instructions détaillées et uni-formes. préparées par le Bureau Européen deCoordination (ECO) de INRA (EUROPE).

COMPARAISON DES ECHANTILLONSAVEC LA POPULATION

ET PONDERATION

Pour chacun des pays une comparaison entreles échantillons et les chiffres de ta population,description d'univers, est réalisée. Les chiffresd'univers sont mis à ta disposition par les Insti-tuts Nationaux et par EUROSTAT.

Pour tous les pays-membres une procédure depondération nationale est réalisée, sur des don-nées marginales ou croisées, tirées de cettedescription d'univers. Ainsi, dans tous les pays,au moins le sexe. l'âge, les régions NUTS II etta taille de l'agglomération sont Introduits dansta procédure d'itération. Pour certains paydes variables supplémentaires sont Introduitessi nécessaire.

Pour pondérer au plan international. INRA (EU-ROPE) applique les données officielles de tapopulation de 15 ans et plus, publiées par EU-ROSTAT dans l'Annuaire 1988 des StatistiquesRégionales. Les chiffres exacts Introduits danscette routine de post-pondération sont résu-més dans le tableau précédent.

ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONAL UNITS UNÎTES ADMIMISTRATIVES REGIONALES

Appendix II

Description of the sample

Appendix III

Questionnaire