, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 611–624 | Cite as

A detailed analysis of how an urban trail system affects cyclists’ travel

  • Kevin J. Krizek
  • Ahmed El-Geneidy
  • Kristin Thompson


Transportation specialists, urban planners, and public health officials have been steadfast in encouraging active modes of transportation over the past decades. Conventional thinking, however, suggests that providing infrastructure for cycling and walking in the form of off-street trails is critically important. An outstanding question in the literature is how one’s travel is affected by the use of such facilities and specifically, the role of distance to the trail in using such facilities. This research describes a highly detailed analysis of use along an off-street facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. The core questions addressed in this investigation aim to understand relationships between: (1) the propensity of using the trail based on distance from the trip origin and destination, and (2) how far out of their way trail users travel for the benefit of using the trail and explanatory factors for doing so. The data used in the analysis for this research was collected as a human intercept survey along a section of an off-street facility. The analysis demonstrates that a cogent distance decay pattern exists and that the decay function varies by trip purpose. Furthermore, we find that bicyclists travel, on average, 67% longer in order to include the trail facility on their route. The paper concludes by explaining how the distance decay and shortest path versus taken path analysis can aid in the planning and analysis of new trail systems.


Non-motorized transportation Cycling Infrastructure Distance decay Route choice Sustainability 



This research was supported in large part by the University of Minnesota Obesity Prevention Center. The authors thank Robb Luckow of Hennepin County for collecting and sharing the data analyzed in this report and Mike Iacono and Jessica Horning for assisting with the review of relevant literature.


  1. Aultman-Hall, L., Hall, F.L., Baetz, B.B.: Analysis of bicycle commuter routes using geographic information systems. Transport. Res. Record 1578, 102–110 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dill, J., Carr, T.: Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. Cities: if you build them, commuters will use them – another look. J. Transport. Res. Board 1828, 116–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hunter, W.W., Huang, H.F.: User counts on bicycle lanes and multiuse trails in the United States. Transport. Res. Record 1502, 45–57 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. Lindsey, G., Nguyen, L., Bao, D.: Use of Greenway Trails In Indiana. J. Urban Plan. Develop. December, 213–217 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. Luoma, M., Kauko, M., Palomäki, M.: The threshold gravity model and transport geography: how transport development influences the distance-decay parameter of the gravity model. J. Transport. Geogr. 1(4), 240–247 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Merom, D., Bauman, A., Vita, P., Close, G.: An environmental intervention to promote walking and cycling – the impact of a newly constructed Rail Trail in Western Sydney. Preventive Med. 36, 235–242 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nelson, A.C., Allen, D.: If you build them, commuters will use them: association between bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Transport. Res. Record 1578, 79–83 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R.: Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc. Sci. Med. 56, 1693–1703 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pucher, J., Komanoff, C., Schimek, P.: Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling. Transport. Res. Part A 33, 625–654 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Pucher, J., Renne, J.: Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transport. Quart. 57, 49–77 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. Rietveld, P., Daniel, V.: Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? Transport. Res.: Part A. 38, 531–550 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. Shafizadeh, K., Niemeier, D.: Bicycle journey-to-work: travel behavior characteristics and spatial attributes. Transport. Res. Record 1578, 84–90Google Scholar
  13. Stinson, M.A., Bhat, C.R.: Commuter bicyclist route choice– analysis using a stated preference survey. Transport. Res. Record 1828, 107–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Taylor, P.J.: Distance Decay Models in Spatial Interactions. Geo Abstracts Ltd., Norwich, UK (1975)Google Scholar
  15. Tilahun, N., Levinson, D.M., Krizek, K.J.: Trails, lanes, or traffic: the value of different bicycle facilities using an adaptive stated preference survey. Transport. Res. Part A 41, 287–301 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Troped, P., Saunders, R., Pate, R., Reininger, B., Ureda, J., Thompson, S.: Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a community rail-trail. Prevent. Med. 32, 191–200 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Untermann, R.K.: Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  18. Zhao, F., Chow, L.-F., Li, M.-T., Ubaka, I., Gan, A.: Forecasting transit walk accessibility. Transport. Res. Record 1835, 34–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Krizek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ahmed El-Geneidy
    • 3
  • Kristin Thompson
    • 3
  1. 1.Active Communities/Transportation (ACT) Research GroupUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Planning and DesignUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Active Communities/Transportation (ACT) Research Group, Humphrey Institute of Public AffairsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations