The importance of factors affecting commuter bicyclists’ route choices was evaluated. Both route-level (e.g., travel time) and link-level (e.g., pavement quality) factors are examined. Empirical models are estimated using data from a stated preference survey conducted via the Internet. The models indicate that, for commuter bicyclists, travel time is the most important factor in choosing a route. Presence of a bicycle facility (especially a bike lane or separate path), the level of automobile traffic, pavement or riding surface quality, and presence of a bicycle facility on a bridge are also very important determinants. Furthermore, there are policy implications of these results for bicycle facility planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KomanoffC., RoelofsC., OrcuttJ., and KetchamB.. Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking in the United States. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 7–12.
2.
MoritzW. E.Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and Aggregate Results. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 91–101.
3.
BetzJ., DustrudeJ., and WalkerJ.. Intelligent Bicycle Routing in the United States. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 21–27.
4.
NiemeierD., RutherfordG., and IshimaruJ.. An Analysis of Bicyclist Survey Responses from the Puget Sound Area and Spokane. Report 95.4. Washington State Transportation Commission, Olympia, 1995.
5.
BeckM. J. H., and ImmersL. H.. Bicycle Ownership and Use in Amsterdam. In Transportation Research Record 1441, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 141–146.
6.
HopeD.Nonrecreational Cycling in Ottawa, Canada. In Transportation Research Record 1441, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 147–150.
7.
HowardC., and BurnsE. K.. Cycling to Work in Phoenix: Route Choice, Travel Behavior, and Commuter Characteristics. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 39–46.
8.
GoldsmithS.Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are Not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes. Publication No. FHWA-PD-92-041. National Bicycle and Walking Study: Case Study #1. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992. www.bikefed.org/PDF/CASE1.PDF. Accessed July 15, 2002.
9.
HarkeyD. L., ReinfurtD. W., KnuimanM., StewartJ. R., and SortonA.. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-072. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Final Report, NCP4A4C. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1998.
10.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., and BrannickM. T.. Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119–126.
11.
SortonA., and WalshT.. Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 17–24.
12.
DixonL.Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–9.
13.
EppersonB.Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level-of-Service Standard. Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 9–16.
14.
BovyP. H. L., and BradleyM. A.. Route Choice Analyzed with Stated-Preference Approaches. Transportation Research Record 1037, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 11–20.
15.
AshleyC., and BanisterC.. Cycling to Work from Wards in a Metropolitan Area. 1. Factors Influencing Cycling to Work. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1989, pp. 297–302.
16.
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1991.
17.
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level. ITE, Washington, D.C., 1999.
Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
20.
LandisB. W.Bicycle Interaction Hazard Score: A Theoretical Model. Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 3–8.
21.
AllenD. P., RouphailN., HummerJ. E., and MilazzoJ. S.II. Operational Analysis of Uninterrupted Bicycle Facilities. Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 29–36.
22.
Interdisciplinary Research Group on Mobility, Environment, and Safety [Groupe de Recherche Interdisciplinaire Mobilité Environnement Securité (GRIMES)]. CRC Index: Compatibility of Roads for Cyclists. A Decision-Aid Tool. Center for Research in Regional Planning and Development, Universite Laval, Québec, Canada, 2002.
23.
ShafizadehK., and NiemeierD.. Bicycle Journey-to-Work: Travel Behavior Characteristics and Spatial Attributes. Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 84–90.
24.
HulseL., and ShafizadehK.. Bicycle Travel-to-Work Patterns. Proc., 10th National Conference on Undergraduate Research: Vol. II (YearoutR. D., ed.), University of North Carolina at Asheville, July1996, pp. 1162–1166.
25.
Aultman-HallL., HallF. L., and BaetzB. B.. Analysis of Bicycle Commuter Routes Using Geographic Information Systems: Implications for Bicycle Planning. Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 102–110.
26.
HyodoT., SuzukiN., and TakahashiK.. Modeling of Bicycle Route and Destination Choice Behavior for Bicycle Road Network Plan. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1705, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 70–76.
27.
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.
28.
MescherP., and SouleyretteR.. Use of an Internet-Based Delphi Technique and Geographic Information System for Bicycle Facility Planning. Proc., 9th Geographic Information Systems for Transportation (GIS-T) Symposium, Kansas City, Mo., March31–April4, 1996, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1996.
29.
SmithD., Jr. Bikeways: State of the Art. Report No. FHWA-RD-74-56. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1974.
30.
FajansJ., and CurryM.. Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs. Access, Issue 18, University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 2001, pp. 28–31.
31.
StinsonM. A.A Discrete Choice Modeling Exploration of the Route Choice Preferences of Commuter Bicyclists. Master’s thesis. University of Texas at Austin, May2002.
32.
LouviereJ., HensherD., and SwaitJ.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
33.
JacksonM. E., and RuehrE. O.. Let the People Be Heard: San Diego County Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey. Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 8–12.
