Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While the installation of lower-stress bicycle facilities has been linked with greater increases in bicycle commuting, the extent to which facilities’ effectiveness is influenced by broader bicycle network characteristics remains unclear. To what degree does bicycle network density amplify the effect of bicycle facilities on bicycle commuting? Using multiple linear regression models and elasticity analyses, this study examined the interplay between bicycle facility installation and bicycle network density and their influence on bicycle commuting in 14,011 block groups across 28 U.S. cities. Findings suggest that bicycle network density exhibited stronger associations with ridership growth than the installation of individual facilities, with network effects exceeding facility installation effects by a factor of 4.6. More specifically, the installation of protected and buffered bicycle lanes was consistently and significantly associated with increased bicycle commuting, but the installation of standard bicycle lanes lost significance after the presence of a wider bicycle network was accounted for (the installation of shared-lane markings and off-road trails demonstrated non-significant relationships with bicycle commuter changes). Protected bicycle lane installations also produced meaningful ridership gains even in lower-density bicycle network contexts (elasticity of 0.48) with diminishing returns as bicycle network density increased (elasticity of 0.24). In contrast, higher-stress facilities demonstrated higher elasticities when moving from medium to high network density (elasticity of 0.57), indicating that their effectiveness is more dependent on a well-connected bicycle network. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of prioritizing not only high-quality, low-stress bicycle facilities but also the development of continuous and connected low-stress networks.

Keywords

bicycle infrastructure low-stress facilities network connectivity bicycle commuting urban mobility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ferenchak

N. N.

Marshall

W. E.

The Link between Low-Stress Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Nature Cities, Vol. 2, no. 6, 2025, pp. 555–559.

Schoner

J. E.

Levinson

D. M.

The Missing Link: Bicycle Infrastructure Networks and Ridership in 74 US Cities. Transportation, Vol. 41, 2014, pp. 1187–1204.

Nelson

A. C.

Allen

If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1578, No. 1, 1997, pp. 79–83.

Dill

Carr

Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major US Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1828, No. 1, 2003, pp. 116–123.

Buehler

Pucher

Cycling to Work in 90 Large American Cities: New Evidence on the Role of Bike Paths and Lanes. Transportation, Vol. 39, 2012, pp. 409–432.

Krizek

K. J.

Barnes

Thompson

Analyzing the Effect of Bicycle Facilities on Commute Mode Share over Time. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 135, No. 2, 2009, pp. 66–73.

Schmitt

The Rise of the North American Protected Bike Lane. Momentum Mag, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2013.

McNeil

Monsere

C. M.

Dill

Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2520, No. 1, 2015, pp. 132–142.

Clark

Mokhtarian

P. L.

Circella

Watkins

The Role of Attitudes in Perceptions of Bicycle Facilities: A Latent-Class Regression Approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 77, 2021, pp. 129–148.

10.

Monsere

Dill

McNeil

Clifton

K. J.

Foster

Goddard

Berkow

, et al. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the US. National Institute for Transportation and Communities, Portland, OR, 2014.

11.

Karpinski

Estimating the Effect of Protected Bike Lanes on Bike-Share Ridership in Boston: A Case Study on Commonwealth Avenue. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2021, pp. 1313–1323.

12.

Garber

M. D.

Flanders

W. D.

Watkins

K. E.

Lobelo

Kramer

M. R.

McCullough

L. E.

Have Paved Trails and Protected Bike Lanes Led to More Bicycling in Atlanta? A Generalized Synthetic-Control Analysis. Epidemiology, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2022, pp. 493–504.

13.

Ferenchak

N. N.

Marshall

W. E.

Advancing Healthy Cities Through Safer Cycling: An Examination of Shared Lane Markings. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2019, pp. 136–145.

14.

PeopleForBikes. Inventory of Protected Bike Lanes. PeopleForBikes, Boulder, CO, 2018.

15.

Marshall

W. E.

Garrick

N. W.

Effect of Street Network Design on Walking and Biking. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2198, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103–115.

16.

Campbell

M. J.

Statistics at Square One. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2021.

17.

Hudde

Educational Differences in Cycling: Evidence from German Cities. Sociology, Vol. 56, No. 5, 2022, pp. 909–929.

18.

Royal

Miller-Steiger

National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior: Volume I: Summary Report, DOT HS 810 971, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2011.

19.

Ledsham

Zhang

Farber

Hess

Beyond Downtown: Factors Influencing Utilitarian and Recreational Cycling in a Low-Income Suburb. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 17, No. 7, 2023, pp. 740–761.

20.

Soto

G. W.

Webber

B. J.

Fletcher

Chen

T. J.

Garber

M. D.

Smith

Wilt

Conn

Whitfield

G. P.

Association between Passively Collected Walking and Bicycling Data and Purposefully Collected Active Commuting Survey Data—United States, 2019. Health & Place, Vol. 81, 2023, p. 103002.

Beyond Low-Stress Bicycle Lanes: Assessing the Role of Bicycle Network Density in Ridership

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References