Exploring good cycling cities using multivariate statistics

  • Andrew J. CollinsEmail author
  • Craig A. Jordan
  • R. Michael Robinson
  • Caitlin Cornelius
  • Ross Gore


Some U.S. cities are excellent for cycling, like Portland, and some cities are not so good. This observation raises the question: what are the characteristics of a city that make it good for cycling? This study investigates the characteristics of 119 cities to explore what factors help make a city good for cycling. What “good” means in terms of cycling cities is subjective and we use the popular Bicycling Magazine ranking of cities for this purpose. We collected a variety of data sources about our cities including geographic, meteorology, and socioeconomic data. These data were used to conduct cluster analyses and create multivariate generalized linear regression models. We hypothesized that geographic and meteorology factors were important in determining good cycling cities. However, our hypothesis was proved wrong because socio-economic factors, like house pricing and obesity rates, play a more important role. For example, hilly cities, like San Francisco, can have excellent cycling infrastructure. The analysis shows what cities are like each other, regarding our considered characteristics; thus, city planners might wish to look at similar cities to help determine forecasts of expected use and public benefit of cycling. We use a case study of the Hampton Roads region of Virginia to show the application of our regression models.


Bicycling Cycling City planning Cluster analysis Multivariate regression 


  1. Bicycling Magazine (2017) The 50 best bike cities of 2016. Accessed 25 May 2017
  2. BikesForPeople (2019) City ratings. Accessed 16 Aug 2019
  3. Breakaway Now Research Group (2015) U.S. Bicycling participation benchmarking study report, pp 1–64Google Scholar
  4. City of Norfolk (2014) City of Norfolk bicycle and pedestrian strategic plan, pp 1–158Google Scholar
  5. Clark SS, Seager TP, Chester MV (2018) A capabilities approach to the prioritization of critical infrastructure. Environ Syst Decis 38(3):339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Community Cycling Center (2012) Understanding barriers to bicycling project. Community Cycling Center, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Elton-Walters J, Wynn N (2017) 17 best cycling apps: iPhone and Android tools for cyclists. Accessed 9 June 9, 2017
  8. Everitt BS, Dunn G (2010) Applied multivariate data analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferguson K (2008) The destructive impact of mountain biking on forested landscapes. Environmentalist 28(2):67–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geelong Planning Committee (1978) Geelong Bikeplan. Geelong Planning Committee, GeelongGoogle Scholar
  11. Harkey D, Reinfurt D, Knuiman M (1998) Development of the bicycle compatibility index. Transp Res Rec 1636:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson M, Ruehr E (1998) Let the people be heard: San Diego County Bicycle use and attitude survey. Transp Res Rec 1636:8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (2009) Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Marqués R, Hernández-Herrador V, Calvo-Salazar M, García-Cebrián J (2015) How infrastructure can promote cycling in cities: lessons from Seville. Res Transp Econ 53:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Meletiou M, Lawrie J, Cook T, Obrien S, Guenther J (2005) Economic impact of investments in bicycle facilities: case study of North Carolina's Northern Outer Banks. Transp Res Rec 1939:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, Collier CW, Johnson D, Schmid TL, Weather RD (2005) Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transp Res Part D 10(3):245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parkin J, Wardman M, Page M (2008) Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation 35(1):93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pierce J, Kolden CA (2015) The Hilliness of US Cities. Geogr Rev 105(4):581–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pucher J, Buehler R (2016) Safer cycling through improved infrastructure. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S (2010) Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prev Med 50:S106–S125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pucher J, Buehler R, Merom D, Bauman A (2011) Walking and cycling in the United States, 2001–2009: evidence from the National Household Travel Surveys. Am J Public Health 101(S1):S310–S317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rousseeuw PJ (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 20:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoner JE, Levinson DM (2014) The missing link: Bicycle infrastructure networks and ridership in 74 US cities. Transportation 41(6):1187–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sears J, Flynn B, Aultman-Hall L, Dana G (2012) To bike or not to bike. Transp Res Rec 2314:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sener I, Eluru N, Bhat C (2009) Who are bicyclists? Why and how much are they bicycling?". Transp Res Rec 2134:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sorton AA, Walsh T (1998) Bicycle stress level as a tool to evaluate urban and suburban bicycle compatibility. Transp Res Rec 1438:17–24Google Scholar
  28. Statistica (2017) Number of cities, towns and villages (incorporated places) in the United States in 2015, by population size. Accessed 25 May 2017
  29. Thorndike RL (1953) Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika 18(4):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tukey JW (1980) We need both exploratory and confirmatory. Am Stat 34(1):23–25Google Scholar
  31. Your Weather Service (2017) U.S. Climate data. Accessed 9 June 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.NorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations