Transportation

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 93–109

Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data

Article

Abstract

A model is presented that relates the proportion of bicycle journeys to work for English and Welsh electoral wards to relevant socio-economic, transport and physical variables. A number of previous studies have exploited existing disaggregate data sets. This study uses UK 2001 census data, is based on a logistic regression model and provides complementary evidence based on aggregate data for the determinants of cycle choice. It suggests a saturation level for bicycle use of 43%. Smaller proportions cycle in wards with more females and higher car ownership. The physical condition of the highway, rainfall and temperature each have an effect on the proportion that cycles to work, but the most significant physical variable is hilliness. The proportion of bicycle route that is off-road is shown to be significant, although it displays a low elasticity (+0.049) and this contrasts with more significant changes usually forecast by models constructed from stated preference based data. Forecasting shows the trend in car ownership has a significant effect on cycle use and offsets the positive effect of the provision of off-road routes for cycle traffic but only in districts that are moderately hilly or hilly. The provision of infrastructure alone appears insufficient to engender higher levels of cycling.

Keywords

Bicycle Journey to work Logistic regression model Census Travel demand modelling 

References

  1. Ashley, C.A., Banister, C.: Cycling to work from wards in a metropolitan area. 1 Factors influencing cycling to work. Traff. Eng. Con. 30(6), 297–302 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. Baltes, M.: Factors Influencing Nondiscretionary Work Trips by Bicycle Determined from 1990 US Census Metropolitan Statistical Area Data, pp. 96–101. Transportation research record 1538 TRB, National research council, Washington, DC (1996)Google Scholar
  3. Bovy, P.H.L., Den Adel, D.N.: Routekeuzegedrag van fietsers: een analyse met de funktionele meetmethode. Delftse Universitaire Pers, Delft (1985)Google Scholar
  4. Bovy, P.H.L., Bradley, M.A.: Route choice analysed with stated preference approaches. Trans. Res. Rec. 1037, 11–20 (1985)Google Scholar
  5. British Standards: 6399 Part II Loading for buildings. Code of practice for wind loads (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Cervero, R., Radisch, C.: Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighbourhoods. Trans. Pol. 3(3), 127–141 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CROW: Sign up for the Bike—Design Manual for a Cycle Friendly Infrastructure. Centre for research and contract standardisation in civil engineering, The Netherlands (1993)Google Scholar
  8. Defra: Department of environment food and rural affairs, Countryside Information System http://www.cis-web.org.uk/home/ (Cited 2003)Google Scholar
  9. DfT: National Cycling Strategy. Department for Transport, London www.dft.gov.uk (1996)Google Scholar
  10. DfT: The future of transport—a network for 2030. Transport White Paper, July 2004. Department for Transport, London. www.dft.gov.uk (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Dill, J., Carr, T.: Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities. Trans. Res. Rec. 1828 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Guthrie, N., Davies, D.G., Gardner, G.: Cyclists’ Assessments of Road and Traffic Conditions: The Development of a Cyclability Index. TRL Report 490. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne (2001)Google Scholar
  13. Hopkinson, P., Wardman, M.: Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities. Trans. Pol. 3(4), 241–249 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landis, B.W., Vattikuti, V.R., Brannick, M.T.: Real-time human perceptions toward a bicycle level of service. Trans. Res. Rec. 1578 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. LRC: The Travel Behaviour of Different Ethnic Groups in London. London Research Centre, London (1997)Google Scholar
  16. Meteorological Office: UK climate and weather statistics http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/ (cited 2004)Google Scholar
  17. McClintock, H., Cleary, J.: Cycle facilities and cyclists’ safety. Trans. Pol. 3(1/2), 67–77 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moudon, A.V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A.D., Collier, C.W., Johnson, D., Schmid, T.L., Weather, R.D.: Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Trans. Res. D 11, 245–261 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Statistics: Transport Statistics Bulletin, National Travel Survey: 2004 SB (05) 30. Department for Transport, London (2005)Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, A., Allen, D.: If You Build them, Commuters Will Use them: Association between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting, pp. 79–83. Transportation research record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington DC (1997)Google Scholar
  21. Ortúzar, J. de D., Iacobelli, A., Valeze, C.: Estimating demand for a cycleway network. Trans. Res. A 34, 353–373 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. Parkin, J.: Comparisons of cycle use for the journey to work from the ‘81, ‘91 and 2001 censuses. Traff. Eng. Con. 44(8), 299–302 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. Parkin, J., Wardman, M., Page, M.: Models of perceived cycling risk and route acceptability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 39, pp. 364–371. (2007). doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.007Google Scholar
  24. Pindyck, R.S., Rubinfeld, D.L.: Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  25. Plaut, P.O.: Non-motorized commuting in the US. Trans. Res. D 10, 347–356 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rietveld, P., Daniel, V.: Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? Trans. Res. A 38, 531–550 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. Stinson, M.A., Bhat, C.R.: Frequency of bicycle commuting: internet-based survey analysis. Transportation Research Board No. 04-3493 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. Stinson, M.A., Bhat C.R.: A comparison of the route preferences of experienced and inexperienced bicycle commuters. Transportation Research Board Paper No. 05-1434 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. Tilahun, N.Y., Levinson, D.M., Krizek, K.J.: Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Trans. Res. A (2006)Google Scholar
  30. Waldman, J.A.: Cycling in Towns: A Quantitative Investigation. LTR1 Working paper 3. Department for Transport, London (1977) (Out of print)Google Scholar
  31. Wardman, M., Hatfield, R., Page, M.: The UK national cycling strategy: can improved facilities meet the targets? Trans. Pol. 4(2), 123–133 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wardman, M., Tight, M., Page, M.: Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Trans. Res. A 41, 339–350 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. Webtag. Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes TAG Unit 3.14.1. Consultation, March. www.webtag.org.uk (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of BoltonBoltonUK
  2. 2.University of Leeds Institute for Transport StudiesLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations