Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 697–718 | Cite as

I want to ride it where I like: measuring design preferences in cycling infrastructure

  • Tomás RossettiEmail author
  • Verónica Saud
  • Ricardo Hurtubia
Article

Abstract

Sidewalk cyclists are a major concern to planners in many cities around the world: they are considerable in numbers, and increase the risk of injury not only to pedestrians but also to themselves. Considering this, planners need evidence to design streets that nudge users into a more desirable behavior from a social perspective. This study analyzes a stated preferences survey that investigates commuters’ preferences for cycling at the sidewalk or street level. With this data, three models were calibrated: two Binomial Logit Models and an Integrated Choice and Latent Class Model. The three showed similar results in terms of preferences, with the ones including users’ characteristics providing richer behavioral insight and a better fit to observed results. On average, respondents prefer infrastructure located at the road level, especially if it is wide and not built next to bus routes. This preference for the road is even stronger in commuters that cycle to work often. We also conclude that building at the sidewalk level is not recommendable, especially in dense urban areas, and that design of cycling infrastructure can and should be informed by quantitative methods like the one proposed here.

Keywords

Discrete choice Integrated choice and latent class models Urban cycling Cycling infrastructure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A preliminary version of this work was presented at the 14th World Conference on Transport Research, held at Shanghai, China, during July 2016. The authors would like to acknowledge the advice given by Patricia Galilea, Professor at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and Pedro Donoso, Professor at Universidad de Chile. The research presented in this article was partly financed by FONDECYT (Project Number 11130637). The authors also gratefully acknowledge the research support provided by the Centre for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS CONICYT/FONDAP 15110020), the Complex Engineering Systems Institute (ICM: P-05-004-F, CONICYT: FBO16) and the Bus Rapid Transit (ALC-BRT) Centre of Excellence funded by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundation (VREF).

Author contributions

TR: Model estimation, manuscript writing. VS: Data collection. RH: Project creation and coordination, model estimation, manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akaike, H.: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19(6), 716–723 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., Goodman, A.: Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age. Transp. Rev. 1647(July), 1–27 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. Andrade, K., Kagaya, S.: Investigating behavior of active cyclists. Transp. Res. Rec. 2314(2314), 89–96 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. Aultman-Hall, L., Hall, F.L.: Ottawa–Carleton commuter cyclist on- and off-road incident rates. Accid. Anal. Prev. 30(1), 29–43 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. Aultman-Hall, L., Kaltenecker, M.G.: Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates. Accid. Anal. Prev. 31(6), 675–686 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. Beharry-Borg, N., Scarpa, R.: Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecol. Econ. 69(5), 1124–1139 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  8. Ben-Akiva, M., Walker, J., Bernardino, A., Gopinath, D.A., Morikawa, T., Polydoropoulou, A.: Intergration of choice and latent variable models. In: Mahmassani, H. (ed.) In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behavior Research Opportunities and Application Challenges, pp. 431–470. Pergamon (2002)Google Scholar
  9. Bhat, C.R.: An endogenous segmentation mode choice model with an application to intercity travel. Transp. Sci. 31(1), 34–48 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. Bierlaire, M.: BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Swiss Transport Research Conference, pp. 1–27. Ascona, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  11. Bike Winnipeg: Commuter Cycling in Winnipeg, 2007–2015. Winnipeg, Canada. Retrieved from http://bikewinnipeg.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Bike-Winnipeg-Commuter-Cycling-in-Winnipeg-2007-2015.pdf (2016)
  12. Blernackl, P., Waldorf, D.: Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 10(2), 141–163 (1981)Google Scholar
  13. Broach, J., Gliebe, J., Dill, J.: Development of a multi-class bicyclist route choice model using revealed preference data. In: 12th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, (December) (2009)Google Scholar
  14. Broach, J., Dill, J., Gliebe, J.: Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 46(10), 1730–1740 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. Bushell, M.A., Poole, B.W., Zegeer, C.V., Rodriguez, D.A.: Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf (2013)
  16. Caulfield, B., Brick, E., McCarthy, O.T.: Determining bicycle infrastructure preferences—a case study of Dublin. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 17(5), 413–417 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Chong, S., Poulos, R., Olivier, J., Watson, W.L., Grzebieta, R.: Relative injury severity among vulnerable non-motorised road users: comparative analysis of injury arising from bicycle-motor vehicle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42(1), 290–296 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. Davies, A.-M., Laing, R.: Images and stated preference: do people need to be told what the attributes are or do they notice them anyway? In: Proceedings of the 3rd Environmental Psychology in the UK Conference, Aberdeen, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  19. Dill, J., Gliebe, J.: Understanding and measuring bicycling behavior: a focus on travel time and route choice. Technical Report December, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (2008)Google Scholar
  20. Evans-Cowley, J.S., Akar, G.: StreetSeen visual survey tool for determining factors that make a street attractive for bicycling. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2468, 19–27 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. Garrard, J., Rose, G., Lo, S.K.: Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Prev. Med. 46(1), 55–59 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. Green, P., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J. Consum. Res. 5(2), 103–123 (1978)Google Scholar
  23. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A.: A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 37(8), 681–698 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. Grisolía, J.M., Willis, K.G.: A latent class model of theatre demand. J. Cult. Econ. 36(2), 113–139 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. Halldórsdóttir, K.: Land-use and network effects on bicycle route choice in the Greater Copenhagen area. In: The 2nd Symposium of the European Association for Research in Transportation (hEART), Estocolmo, Suecia (2013)Google Scholar
  26. Hawaii Bicycling League: O’ahu Bike Count. Retrieved from https://www.hbl.org/advocacy/bike-count/ (2016)
  27. Heiner, R.A.: The origin of predictable behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 73(4), 560–595 (1983).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896(83)90055-0
  28. Hensher, D.A.: Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 44(6), 735–752 (2010)Google Scholar
  29. Hess, S., Ben-Akiva, M., Gopinath, D., Walker, J.: Advantages of latent class choice models over continuous mixed logit models. Presented at 12th international conference for travel behaviour research, Jaipur, India (2009)Google Scholar
  30. Hoffer, B.: The potential of online respondent data for choice modeling in transportation research: evidence from stated preference experiments using web-based samples. Master Thesis, ETH-Singapore Centre for Global Environmental Sustainability (SEC), Singapore (2015)Google Scholar
  31. Hood, J., Sall, E., Charlton, B.: A GPS-based bicycle route choice model for San Francisco, California. Transp. Lett. Int. J. Transp. Res. 3(1), 63–75 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. Horowitz, J.L.: Statistical comparison of non-nested probabilistic discrete choice models. Transp. Sci. 17(3), 319–350 (1983)Google Scholar
  33. Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 33(3), 307–317 (1996)Google Scholar
  34. Hunt, J.D., Abraham, J.E.: Influences on bicycle use. Transportation 34(4), 453–470 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. Hurtubia, R., Nguyen, M.H., Glerum, A., Bierlaire, M.: Integrating psychometric indicators in latent class choice models. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 64, 135–146 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. Hurtubia, R., Guevara, C.A., Donoso, P.: Using images to measure qualitative attributes of public spaces through SP surveys. Transp. Res. Procedia 11, 460–474 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. Jansen, S., Boumeester, H., Coolen, H., Goetgeluk, R., Molin, E.: The impact of including images in a conjoint measurement task: evidence from two small-scale studies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 24(3), 271–297 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. Kamakura, W., Russell, G.: A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Mark. Res. 26(4), 379–390 (1989)Google Scholar
  39. Kang, L., Fricker, J.D.: Bicyclist commuters’ choice of on-street versus off-street route segments. Transportation 40(5), 887–902 (2013)Google Scholar
  40. Kocur, G., Adler, T., Hyman, W.: Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct utility assessment. Technical Report, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC (1981)Google Scholar
  41. Krizek, K.J., Johnson, P.J., Tilahun, N.: Gender differences in bicycling behavior and facility preferences. In: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Report of a Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers. Conference Proceedings, vol. 35, pp. 31–40. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  42. Larsen, J., El-Geneidy, A.: A travel behavior analysis of urban cycling facilities in Montreal, Canada. Transp. Res Part D Transp. Environ. 16(2), 172–177 (2011)Google Scholar
  43. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics, pp. 105–142. Academic Press, London (1974)Google Scholar
  44. Menghini, G., Carrasco, N., Schüssler, N., Axhausen, K.W.: Route choice of cyclists in Zurich. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44(9), 754–765 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. Mertens, L., Van Dyck, D., Ghekiere, A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche, B., Weghe, N.V.D., Van Cauwenberg, J.: Which environmental factors most strongly influence a street’s appeal for bicycle transport among adults? A conjoint study using manipulated photographs. Int. J. Health Geogr. 15(1), 31 (2016)Google Scholar
  46. Miranda, L.: Un peatón furioso. La Tercera, p. T08. Retrieved from http://diario.latercera.com/2013/02/23/01/contenido/tendencias/26-130505-9-un-peaton-furioso.shtml (2013)
  47. Moritz, W.: Adult bicyclists in the United States: characteristics and riding experience in 1996. Transp. Res. Rec. 1636(98), 1–7 (1998)Google Scholar
  48. MORPC: September 2015 volunteer count summary report (2015)Google Scholar
  49. Motoaki, Y., Daziano, R.A.: A hybrid-choice latent-class model for the analysis of the effects of weather on cycling demand. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 75, 217–230 (2015)Google Scholar
  50. Nicaj, L., Stayton, C., Mandel-Ricci, J., McCarthy, P., Grasso, K., Woloch, D., Kerker, B.: Bicyclist fatalities in New York City: 1996–2005. Traffic Injury Prev. 10, 157–161 (2009)Google Scholar
  51. Ortúzar, J.D.D., Iacobelli, A., Valeze, C.: Estimating demand for a cycle-way network. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 34(5), 353–373 (2000)Google Scholar
  52. Ortúzar, J.D.D., Willumsen, L.G.: Modelling Transport, 4th edn. Wiley, London (2011)Google Scholar
  53. Orzechowski, M.A., Arentze, T.A., Borgers, A.W.J., Timmermans, H.J.P.: Alternate methods of conjoint analysis for estimating housing preference functions: effects of presentation style. J. Hous. Built Environ. 20(4), 349–362 (2005)Google Scholar
  54. Reynolds, C.C.O., Harris, M.A., Teschke, K., Cripton, P.A., Winters, M.: The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature. Environ. Health 8(1), 47 (2009)Google Scholar
  55. Ríos, R., Taddia, A.: Ciclo-inclusión en América Latina y el Caribe: Guía para impulsar el uso de la bicicleta (2015)Google Scholar
  56. Saud, V.: Relevancia de los atributos del espacio público en las decisiones de ruta en bicicleta. Tesis de magíster, Universidad de Chile (2014)Google Scholar
  57. Schwarz, G.: Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6(2), 461–464 (1978)Google Scholar
  58. SECTRA: Encuesta origen destino de viajes 2012. Technical report, Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, Santiago, Chile (2015)Google Scholar
  59. Sener, I.N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C.R.: An analysis of bicycle route choice preferences in Texas, US. Transportation 36(5), 511–539 (2009)Google Scholar
  60. Shen, J.: Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data. Appl. Econ. 41(22), 2915–2924 (2009)Google Scholar
  61. Stinson, M.A., Bhat, C.R.: Commuter bicyclist route choice: analysis using a stated preferences survey. Transp. Res. Rec 1828, 107–115 (2003)Google Scholar
  62. Stinson, M.A. Bhat, C.R.: A comparison of the route preferences of experienced and inexperienced bicycle commuters. In: Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting, Vol. 512 (2005)Google Scholar
  63. Tilahun, N.Y., Levinson, D.M., Krizek, K.: Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 41(4), 287–301 (2007)Google Scholar
  64. Vandenbulcke, G., Dujardin, C., Thomas, I., Geus, B.D., Degraeuwe, B., Meeusen, R., Panis, L.I.: Cycle commuting in Belgium: spatial determinants and ’re-cycling’ strategies. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 45(2), 118–137 (2011)Google Scholar
  65. Wachtel, A., Lewiston, D.: Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at intersections. J. Saf. Res. 27(3), 195 (1996)Google Scholar
  66. Walker, J., Li, J.: Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions. J. Geogr. Syst. 9, 77–101 (2007)Google Scholar
  67. Wardman, M., Tight, M., Page, M.: Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 41(4), 339–350 (2007)Google Scholar
  68. Weigand, L., McNeil, N., Dill, J.: Cost analysis of bicycle facilities: cases from cities in the Portland, OR region. Active Living Research, Portland, OR. Retrieved from https://activelivingresearch.org/cost-analysis-bicycle-facilities-cases-cities-portland-or-region (2013)
  69. Wen, C.H., Lai, S.C.: Latent class models of international air carrier choice. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 46(2), 211–221 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería de Transporte y LogísticaPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.The Bartlett Development Planning UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Escuela de ArquitecturaPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations