Skip to main content
Log in

Bicyclist commuters’ choice of on-street versus off-street route segments

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When using limited funds on bicycle facilities, it would be helpful to know the extent to which a new facility will be used. If a bicycle lane is added to a street, how many bicyclists will no longer use the adjacent sidewalk? If a separate bicycle path is constructed, how many bicyclists will move from the street or sidewalk? This study seeks to identify factors that explain a bicyclist’s choice between available facility choices—off-street (sidewalk and bicycle path) or on-street (bicycle lane and roadway). This paper investigates these issues through a survey of bicyclists headed to Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN, USA. The first data collected to address these questions were “site-based”. Bicyclists were interviewed on campus at the end of their trips and asked which part of the cross-sections along their routes they had used—on-street or off-street. The characteristics of a particular cross-section of street right-of-way were then compared against the characteristics of each bicyclist and his/her observed choice of street, sidewalk, lane, or path. Later, “route-based” serial data were also added. The study developed a mixed logit model to analyze the bicyclists’ facility preferences and capture the unobserved heterogeneity across the population. Effective sidewalk width, traffic signals, segment length, road functional class, street pavement condition, and one-way street configuration were found to be statistically significant. A bicycle path is found to be more attractive than a bicycle lane. Predictions from the model can indicate where investments in particular bicycle facilities would have the most desirable response from bicyclists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonakos, C.L.: Research issues on bicycling, pedestrians, and older drivers. Environmental and travel preference of cyclists. Transp. Res. Rec. 1438, 29–31 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aultman-Hall, L., Adams, J.R.M.F.: Sidewalk bicycling safety issues. Transp. Res. Rec. 1636, 71–76 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartus, T.: Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. Stata J 3, 309–329 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to predict travel demand, pp. 69–70. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.: Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial Mogit model. Transp. Res. B 37, 677–693 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.: Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp. Res. B 37, 837–855 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, R., Pucher, J.: Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bicycle paths and lanes. Transportation 39, 409–432 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Geus, B., De Smet, S., Nijs, J., Meeusen, R.: Determining the intensity and energy expenditure during commuter cycling. Br. J. Sports Med. 41, 8–12 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, J., Carr, T.: Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: if you build them, commuters will use them. Transp. Res. Rec. 1828, 116–123 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Highway Administration: National bicycling and walking study, case study no. 1: reasons why bicycling and walking are not being used more extensively as travel modes. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington (1992)

  • Ford, K.M., Fricker, J.D., Brown, J.M.: Discrete choice analysis of bicyclist cross-sectional behavior. 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper #11-0956, 23–26 Jan 2011

  • Greene, W.H.: Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Halton, J.: On the efficiency of evaluating certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numer. Math. 2(1), 84–90 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkey, D.L., Reinfurt, D.W., Knuiman, M., Stewart, J.R., Sorton, A.: Development of the bicycle compatibility index: a level of service approach. Federal Highway Administration, Report FHWA-RD-98-072. Chapel Hill (1998)

  • Harvey, F., Krizek, K.J., Collins, R.: Using GPS data to assess bicycle commuter route choice. Compendium of papers DVD, 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper #08-2951, 13–15 Jan 2008

  • Heckman, J.: Statistical models for discrete panel data. In: Manski, C., McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinen, E., Van Wee, B., Maat, K.: Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature. Transp. Rev. 30(1), 59–96 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highway capacity manual: Special Report 209. National Research Council, Washington (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Highway capacity manual: Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J.D., Abraham, J.E.: Influences on bicycle use. Transportation 34, 453–470 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, W.W., Stewart, J.R., Stutts, J.C.: Study of bicycle lanes versus wide curb. Transp. Res. Rec. 1674, 70–77 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klobucar, M., Fricker, J.D.: Network evaluation tool to improve real and perceived bicycle safety. Transp. Res. Rec. 2031, 25–33 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krizek, K.J., Barnes, G., Thompson, K.: Analyzing the effects of bicycle facilities on commute mode share over time. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 135(2), 66–73 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krizek, K.J., Johnson, P., Tilahun, N.: Gender differences in bicycling behavior and facility preferences. In: Rosenbloom, S. (ed.) Research on women’s issues in transportation, special report, vol. 2, pp. 31–40. National Academy Press/Transportation Research Board, Washington (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawlor, D.A., Ness, A.R., Cope, A.M., Insall, P., Riddoch, C.: The challenges of evaluating environmental interventions to increase population levels of physical activity: the case of the UK National Cycle Network. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 57(2), 96–101 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • League of Illinois Bicyclists.: Polls Show Americans Want Better Biking. http://www.bicyclelib.org/tbills/americanswant.htm (2003). Accessed 10 July 2009

  • Meuleners, L.B., Lee, A.H., Haworth, C.: Road environment, crash type and hospitalization of bicyclists and motorcyclists presented to emergency departments in western Australia. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39, 1222–1225 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NACTO: NACTO urban bikeway design guide, contra-flow bike lanes, National Association of City Transportation Officials, http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bike-lanes/contra-flow-bike-lane/ (2012). Accessed 15 May 2012

  • Nelson, A.C., Allen, D.: If you build them, commuters will use them: association between bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Transp. Res. Rec. 1578, 79–83 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkin, J., Wardman, M., Page, M.: Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation 35, 93–109 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S.: Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prev. Med. 50, 106–125 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sener, I.N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C.: An analysis of bicycle route choice preferences in Texas, US. Transportation 36, 511–539 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinson, M.A., Bhat, C.R.: A comparison of the route preferences of experienced and inexperienced bicycle commuters. Presented at 84th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, 9–13 Jan 2005

  • Taylor, D., Mahmassani, H.: Analysis of stated preferences for intermodal bicycle-transit interfaces. Transp. Res. Rec. 1556, 86–95 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilahun, N.Y., Levinson, D.M., Krizek, K.: Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transp. Res. A 41, 287–301 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Train. K.: Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley (1999)

  • Wachtel, A., Lewiston, D.: Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at intersections. ITE Journal 64, 30–35 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D.: PASER manuals—concrete and asphalt. Wisconsin Transportation Information Center, 432 North Lake Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA. tic.engr.wisc.edu (2002). Accessed 16 April 2012

  • Washington, S., Karlaftis, M., Mannering, F.L.: Statistical and econometric methods for transportation data analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Fred Mannering at Purdue University for his guidance and suggestions on model estimation. The authors appreciate the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of the paper. The authors acknowledge the efforts of Jennifer Brown and Kevin Ford in preparing the original data set. Yingge Xiong also provided some thoughtful ideas for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon D. Fricker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kang, L., Fricker, J.D. Bicyclist commuters’ choice of on-street versus off-street route segments. Transportation 40, 887–902 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9453-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9453-x

Keywords

Navigation