Recent transport policy favors cycling, yet it remains to be seen, in a car-dependent society, whether individuals will increase the amount they cycle. With Edinburgh, Scotland, as a case study, discrete choice models, based on random utility theory and using stated preference data, were developed to determine the propensity to cycle and provide an estimate of cycling demand. The data are from a survey of 997 households in West Edinburgh. Respondents in employment or education were split into population segments according to their propensity to cycle. The survey includes a cycling-based stated preference experiment for those traveling to work or study by car, by bus, or on foot. The study is novel in considering the population as a whole, instead of focusing on cyclists, with the modeling results split by population segments. Model estimation shows that cyclist facilities, primarily at the destination but also en route, largely determine the propensity to cycle to work or study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Edinburgh Facts and Figures. Household Structure.City of Edinburgh Council, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1998.
2.
Edinburgh's Census 2001 City Comparisons.City Development Department Research Section, City of Edinburgh Council, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2003.
3.
Local Transport Strategy 2004–2007.City of Edinburgh Council, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004.
4.
Department of Transport.National Cycling Strategy.HMSO, London, 1996.
5.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, The Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport.HMSO, London, 1998.
6.
GardnerG., and RyleyT.. Trip End Facilities for Cyclists. Transport Research Laboratory Report 309. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 1997.
7.
DaviesD. G., HallidayM. E., MayesM., and PocockR. L.. Attitudes to Cycling—A Qualitative Study and Conceptual Framework. Transport Research Laboratory Report 266. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom,1997.
8.
DaviesD. G., GrayS., GardnerG., and HarlandG.. A Quantitative Study of the Attitudes of Individuals to Cycling. Transport Research Laboratory Report 481. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom,2001.
9.
PolakJ., and JonesP.. Using Stated Preference Methods to Examine Traveller Preferences and Responses. In Understanding Travel Behaviour in an Era of Change (StopherP., and Lee-GosselinM., eds.), Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1997.
10.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
11.
LouviereJ. J., HensherD. A., and SwaitJ. D.. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application.Cambridge University PressCambridge, United Kingdom,2000.
12.
KatzR.Modeling Bicycle Demand As a Mainstream Transportation Planning Function. In Transportation Research Record 1502, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 22–28.
13.
EashR.Destination and Mode Choice Models for Nonmotorized Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1674, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 1–8.
14.
PorterC., SuhrbierJ., and SchwartzW. L.. Forecasting Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: State of the Practice and Research Needs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1674, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 94–101.
15.
TurnerS., HottensteinA., and ShunkG.. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Demand Forecasting. A Literature Review.Texas Transportation InstituteCollege Station,1997.
16.
Guidebook on Method to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Supporting Documentation. Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-166, FHWA, 1999.
17.
BovyP. H. L., and BradleyM. A.. Route Choice Analyzed with Stated-Preference Approaches. In Transportation Research Record 1037, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 11–20.
18.
HopkinsonP., and WardmanM.. Evaluating the Demand for New Cycling Facilities.Transport Policy, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996, pp. 241–249.
19.
AbrahamJ. E., McMillanS., BrownleeA. T., and HuntJ. D.. Investigation of Cycling Sensitivities. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.
20.
StinsonM., and BhatC. R.. Analysis of Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice Using a Stated Preference Survey. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
21.
OrtuzarJ. D., IacobelliI., and ValezeC.. Estimating Demand for a Cycle Network.Transportation Research A, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 353–373.
22.
WardmanM., HatfieldR., and PageM.. The UK National Cycling Strategy: Can Improved Facilities Meet the Targets?Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1997, pp. 123–133.
23.
WardmanM., NashC. A., TightM. R., and PageM. W.. Cycling and Urban Mode Choice. Final Report of Economic and Social Research Council Project R000237103. Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, United Kingdom, 2000.
