User adherence to the objectives of the regional mobility plan
The surveyed population gave their level of agreement to a series of statements related to mobility. The statements were only submitted to the respondents for whom they were relevant.
Summary of adherence to the objectives of the regional mobility plan
This synthesis takes the sum of the respondents' answers "Completely agree" and "Rather agree". It makes it possible to highlight the adherence of Brussels residents to regional mobility.
79%
I favour local shops and services so that I can get to them on foot, by bicycle or by public transport. The level of agreement is stable compared to 2021.
Number of responses: 4645 of which 207 not applicable (4%)
67%
I am ready to have a parcel delivered to a collection point located on my daily route, instead of having it delivered to my home, in order to reduce the number of trucks and vans in the city. The level of agreement is identical to that of 2021.
Number of responses: 2767 of which 124 not concerned (4%)
61%
I would use public transport more during off-peak hours if the frequency of services was higher. The level of agreement is close to that of 2021 (63% => 61%).
Number of responses: 1797 of which 230 not applicable (13%)
54%
I would cycle more if there were more roads equipped with cycling facilities when traffic volumes or speeds are too high. The level of support is down compared to 2021 (60% => 54%). This can go hand in hand with an increase in usage among the population. Over time it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit new users since those who could already switch to cycling have already done so.
Number of responses: 1874 of which 322 not concerned (17%)
54%
I would cycle more if there were more secure parking facilities near my destination. The membership level is down compared to 2021 (60% => 54%). This can go hand in hand with an increase in usage among the population. Over time it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit new users since those who could already start cycling have already done so.
Number of responses: 1,874 of which 403 not concerned (22%)
40%
I am ready to pay more for my journey and/or my car parking if my travel times decrease and if I can find parking at my destination more easily.
Number of responses: 1581 including 120 not concerned (8%)
30%
Among all respondents to the mobility barometer, it appears that the smartphone constitutes a barrier to the use of free-floating shared vehicles for 30% of them.
Number of responses: 4,645 of which 1,311 are not concerned (28%)
28%
In the next two or three years, I will replace a vehicle equipped with a combustion engine with a 100% electric vehicle. The level of agreement is slightly down compared to 2021. Given that the number of users who have switched to electric cars is increasing year on year, it may become increasingly difficult to convince the remaining people. The reasons can be varied: high purchase price, lack of private parking to install a charging point, etc.
Number of responses: 1581 of which 165 not concerned (10%)
19%
In the next two or three years, I will replace a motor vehicle with one or more subscriptions to mobility services (self-service car-sharing, public transport, self-service bike-sharing …). The level of agreement is increasing compared to 2021 (19% versus 16% in 2021). This is a sign that serviced mobility is becoming a credible solution for an increasingly significant portion of the population.
Number of responses: 1581 of which 149 not concerned (9%)
The following 5 statements were already submitted as part of a survey regarding car ownership to Brussels residents who have a car licence and are part of a household that has a car at its disposal. Overall, Brussels respondents to the Mobility Barometer are more in agreement with these statements than the people surveyed as part of the survey related to car ownership.
75%
Air pollution has a significant impact on our health.
Number of responses: 3,437.
67%
Car traffic pollutes the air in neighbourhoods.
Number of responses: 3,437.
58%
The government must develop more bus and tram lines even if this sometimes involves removing parking spaces.
Number of responses: 3,437.
56%
It is necessary to limit through traffic in residential neighbourhoods to make them more pleasant and safer, even if this sometimes means drivers have to take longer routes.
Number of responses: 3,437.
54%
The government must develop more cycle paths even if this sometimes involves removing parking spaces.
Number of responses: 3,437.
Grouping of respondents from the Mobility Barometer according to their socio-demographic characteristics and their level of agreement with the following three statements:
- "The government must create more cycle lanes even if this sometimes involves removing parking spaces"
- "The government must create more bus and tram lines even if this sometimes involves removing parking spaces"
- "It is necessary to limit through-traffic in residential neighbourhoods to make them more pleasant and safer, even if this sometimes means motorists have to take longer detours".
Given the data collection method used for the Barometer and even though the results were weighted based on socio-demographic data, it cannot be guaranteed that the survey results can be extrapolated to all users of the Brussels transport offer. Nevertheless, this grouping of respondents into more or less homogeneous categories highlights the heterogeneity in the respondents' level of agreement with the three statements and the weight that each of these groups represents.
Based on this method, the groups thus formed are as follows:
- Group 1 (36% of respondents): in agreement with all three statements, they are more likely to be young (under 45), use the car less in favour of cycling, and live more in the central municipalities of the Brussels region (Brussels City, Ixelles, Saint-Gilles, Saint-Josse-ten-Noode or Schaerbeek). They are interested in proposals for better cycling infrastructure on main roads and more secure parking at home and at destinations. They are also more in favour of delivery to collection points, prioritising local shops and services, and carpooling. On the other hand, they are fairly indifferent to improving public transport or the risks of assault during the day or at night.
- Group 2 (33% of respondents): Composed of respondents who have a rather neutral opinion on the three statements. They are more likely to live outside the Brussels region, use trains to get there, and use cycling and walking less than the average respondent. They are slightly more in favour of proposals to improve pedestrian and cycling mobility, to have more secure parking at destinations, off-peak public transport frequencies, delivery to collection points, and shops and services close to home.
- Group 3 (6% of respondents): A minority group compared to the others, disagreeing with all three statements. It is composed mainly of pensioners or those in pre-retirement. They use STIB services, their car and walking more, and micromobility and shared mobility services less. They also live more on the outskirts of the Brussels region. They feel less concerned by proposals related to cycling, carpooling and car-sharing services. They are particularly resistant to the idea of replacing their vehicle with an electric vehicle or with mobility services, as well as to delivery to collection points.
- Group 4 (24% of respondents): completely disagreeing with all three statements. They hardly use bicycles, favour the car over other modes and live more on the outskirts or outside the Brussels region. The group is composed of more people over 45 and more men than the average respondent. They particularly disagree with proposals concerning cycling, carpooling, delivery to collection points, and using local shops and services. They have more moderate disagreement with proposals related to walking and public transport.